"...it is in all our interests that the public is properly and
accurately informed."
Tony Blair
Prime Minister, Great Britain
12 June, 2007
I'm of the opinion that the most destructive force in America today (besides the
teacher's unions, of course) is the way in which we are informed. The means by which our news is delivered is a disgrace and getting worse.
I find it amazing that Exxon-Mobil is not allowed to comment on the subject
of carbon emissions because they produce the product that results in those
emissions. By that standard, we should not allow the news outlets to comment
on the news! They DO have a motive to lie and exaggerate, you know.
People seem to think that the news is there to present the news. Not so. 
The companies we earnestly want to trust with informing us on current events is beholden to corporate pressures the same as Walmart and Ford Auto. The business of any information medium is advertising. They present a billboard upon which companies may present their wares to an interested (usually) audience.
A lot's changed since I was in school, but the tangent in the study of Psychology that studied how people are influenced was called "Applied Psychology." You'd be surprised what they think of you in that line of work. You use your emotions to make decisions. You use your intellect to justify your decisions. If one can manipulate your emotions to their advantage, then one can own the decisions you make.
The news talkers suffer from urgency inflation. 
They must show that the merely problematic is a disaster. Anything unexpected is a "setback." A setback, then, is a "problem." A problem, as stated, has become a disaster. For example, the storm named "Katrina" was a disaster. But, while the response to it was organizationally difficult, there was plenty of heroism to go around. The storm was the disaster, not the response! But a "problem" can draw a bigger audience than a "setback" can. A disaster draws more viewers to the advertising platform than a "problem" does.
They do this for at least two reasons.
- To set you up for the next ad. An excited viewer will be more manipulatable than a calm one.
- To put you in the mood to stay where you are. ("Don't change that channel!") Our broadcasters don't pay their beautiful people to let you watch someone else's ads.
There are of course, unintended consequences.
They must have anger.
They must have fear.
They will accuse, shame, place blame and instill guilt.
They will use our greed and other desires in their use of celebrity.
They will call good evil, and evil good.
And many, if not most of us, will believe them.
Their most precious assett is their credibility. In the process of throwing all these negative emotions around, they will divide us. We will treat each other with the suspicion that the corrupt deserve. We will believe our neighbors are as vicious as serial killers. Our corporate leaders want to kill their own kids with devastating pollutants, and our political leaders are moronic nimrods so malleable in the mesmerizing will of evil "handlers."
I don't have any answers. All I know is that the media is becoming more and more hysterical over time, trying to keep up their audience numbers so they can charge advertisers the same fees as they did 5 or 10 years ago. It is affecting the way they tell the news.
The potential for harm is staggering. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been the greatest friend we've had for the last 10 years. He was Clinton's closest ally as well as G Bush's. He's on his way out, and has offered his opinions on how the media has changed. It's a good read. Add this to their
natural leftist bias and it starts to look like a "disaster."
espresso beans to newsbusters
No comments:
Post a Comment