The other night, I was watching t.v., for the first time in a long time, observing the footages coming out of New Orleans; and what I saw was an MSNBC news reporter exclaiming harsh criticism, and dissaproval, over how George W. Bush handled, and is handling, the current crisis of Katrina. Well, after the reporter’s harsh and bitter speech, the camera cut away from the outraged reporter, to pictures of George W. Bush consoling and hugging two African-American victims of the disaster.
After about, perhaps 5 minutes of images, the camera cuts back to the same reporter, but now, he was giving a completely new speech. This time it went as follows:
" I have met George W. Bush in person – I have spent hours with him on Air Force One; and know that in the bottom of his heart he deeply cares for this country, and that he is hurting by what has happened. I know that he will put all his effort into doing the best he can. . . . . . ."
While the reporter was saying this, I saw in his face, that he did not believe in a single word of what he was saying! Now, talk about Double-Think. And talk about control room authority and editing. Power and control, while the public is too blind to see it right before their eyes.
What happened to democracy? And truth? Apparently, it does not exist.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, just scroll down to Kayne West’s comments.
I can imagine, someone monitering at the network, started talking into that reporters earpiece, telling him he was out of line and that he better “put it right” or he’d suffer the consequences. It’s state parentalism gone out of control.
But the question that really perturbs me is, why do these people feel it’s necessary to treat the populace like ignorant children incapable of discerning fact from opinion, who need to be kept from being offended? It is weakness on an unacceptable level. It is as if, in the new semantics of our time the true menaing of integrity has faded, and been replaced by fear of reprisal. The image of a chained dancer comes to mind as a possible metaphor for the reality of constriction that is named “political correctness”.
One must tear down the walls to discover the hidden flaws.
I’ll say one thing for Ayn Rand; she sure knew what she was talking about in regards of media altruism.
Maybe the MSNBC reporter, rather than either trying to exclaim opinionated harsh criticism, or pretend praise for the president, should have just reported the facts at hand. Does that ask too much from “reporters”?
It’s funny that you should write this because I watched an episode of the outer limits (one of the best shows still on TV) the other day and it delt with media and truth. Basically this news show tried to blow the cover off this government cloning thing but in the end… a clone of the host and a gang of clones found the broadcast and killed everyone, only to air an additional broadcast proclaiming that their guest was a lunatic and lied about everything and then shot himself etc…
Anyways… where were we…
Oh yes… the greatest tool in the history of government. It combines elements of fear, docility, manufactured pleasure and even some subtle brainwashing… the media.
I watched a show which examined the different network’s coverage of the election and fox news was absolutely ridiculous. Every time they showed Kerry he was in jeans, looking at his worst. Every time Bush came on it was suit and pedestal. Seriously turn on fox news and just listen to it… they will just flat out say stuff like ‘That’s why you let the olympics go to france… then you let them deal with these nutjobs’. I’m being serious here… this is unbiased journalism? This is drunken banter you’d find at a place named ‘The angry hetero’ or something.
When we watch tv our brains are less active then when we’re asleep. TV was originally developed from plans to possible a brainwashing device. When you watch it your mind slips into alpha(delta? I forget) state in which information just rushes through the floodgates, unrestricted and deep into the wells of our subconscience. These ads that come on and say things like ‘You can’t live without the new swiffer sweeper!’ resonate in the back of our heads.
And all this reality tv shit… it’s CONDITIONING
“Hey how would you like to be on a reality tv show? Sure! I’m gonna be on tv!! oh wooo wee, look at me… up there on the screen… hey wait… i see everyone else in america too… what’s goin on here?”
If you’re feeling too overwhelmed by the media… there is a mental shield available… talk to mary jane at 420 lane. She can help you out… just tell her necessity sent you.
But as I tried to say before, the more interesting topic here is the self censorship of the media itself, and why it is supposedly necessary. And that also follows along with TUM’s original post in that it questions the value of the facts above the percieved sensitivity of viewers.
That’s kind of funny, and that is why Fox news panders to a certain crowd. It’s also why they are known for being/having a sensationalist right wing bias. I mean this age of media ubiquity is just another… it mimics an earlier form of staged entertainment. There is little integrity in it. There is little understanding of what life should be. For anyone that actually desires truth, in the philosophical sense, it/they are a painful joke, and hence one suffers a sense of profound frustration at the actual world.
I want to write about:
a) The reporter who changed his mind on W. Bush.
b) Keyne West going off script.
C) Television.
Starting a the top. The White House is not in control of NBC, ABC, or some other "X"BC. I believe that Mr. Bush himself is too at his leisure to really care. He already gets bad publicity from that Mom who lost her son. A little criticism from the Left, or some journalist is not the concern of the President. The person of the President IS NOT OFF LIMITS TO BAD OPINIONS. Keyne West, Chomsky or some other Left, Dove, Critic, etc can and do speak against the Administration on TV, BET, F>.UTV etc. So much for the Orwellian state control of the media.
Just yesterday I went to a bookstore, not some hole in the wall but a respectable nation-wide store and found a whole section on anti-Bush titles…along friendly titles.
This is not Teheran or Beijin, so let’s stop insulting the true plight of those living oppressed by trying to equate our media to theirs.
Second. Mr West. Be it him or another, I much don’t care, rappers for me, are empty cans. I saw an interview he gave MTV… What came across is that he is quite arrogant. When another artist had won instead of him, he could not recognize the merit in the other artist but only cry about not winning when he was clearly, in his mind, superior to all other talents.
No to say that because his character is flawed that the argument is deficient, but that the argument’s source should be considered along with it. So, are there no white families there? The moment you show me a white face, the argument falls.
As Imp pointed out, black people are the ones looting and robbing. The white president is not holding back supplies that he has avaiable, hoping to see a few more negroes die. As a christian, that seems unlikely, and unlike many profesed christians, Bush’s policies reflect conservative christian views. West was nominated as a gospel singer, I suppose a christian one, so it is strange that he cannot recognize a fellow christian.
When many african americans fill the prisions of this country–it must be because they were black. Never mind if they robbed, killed, rapped, sold drugs to other black children–destrying their future…No! The system targets them!!
Blacks and democrats bleed leftists blood. It is their desire to unencumber themselves from responsibility. Culture is to blame, the system is to blame, Bush is to blame, the white men are to blame.
None dare ask what is it that they could do, but what others could do for them. No one asks what is it that whites have done that they have not yet done, or why some blackmen raise up from the 'hood and become millionares…I don’t mean the rappers or the athletes.
Now West says: "I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family, it says, “They’re looting.” You see a white family, it says, “They’re looking for food.”
O- What is the percentage of white folks robbing versus black folks robbing? It would be nice to know. So what is it? I believe they are different. What is in their hands? Where do they come out of? If I am comming out of Winn Dixie or Publix with cheese and bread, I am looking for food, does not matter whether I am black or white. But if I am comming out of Circiut City or a Best Buy I am looting. West and the rest of the reporters need to get that distinction right, for it is important to be objective and be color blind. What we should never do is to think that looting equals to foraging for food and differ ONLY on what is the color of your skin, as west has done. Mr West is a provocateur. His bizz is to shock with his mouth, just as Manson shocks with his body and as Madonna did with her sexuality.
Lastly, as far as television is concerned, and I hate to be brief, I carefully advise to turn off the damn thing if your mind is so weak as to be overcome by Celebrity Life.
There is no way a journalist can be bias-free; i’d rather view/read one who wears their bias on their sleeve for all to see than one pretend to be an objective hack.
Even placing a camera is biased; how could any reporting of events be unbiased? Some bits are reported, some aren’t.
Your hilariously simplistic pseudo-scientific explanation of television is insulting to me, someone who has actually bothered to not just trot out the useful leftists cliches about mass media and has studied it.
Kindly apologise and admit you don’t know what you are talking about.
Or about sincere debate. You’d rather just trot out the same liberal leftists cliches which give you and your kind (i.e. the weak spirited) ready made excuses for your failures.
Quit saying such dumb things as ‘TV was invented for brainwashing’ and maybe I’ll stop insulting you. Firstly TV was never invented, it was developed simultaneously by 4 different people.
Don’t you get it… you believe the propaganda and call it truth. Open your eyes.
But presuming your petty claim is true perhaps you’d like to explain how the US high school sports system (i.e. the feeder system for the national leagues) ‘is military’…
Perhaps you’d like to explain how the huge profits made by pharmaceutical companies ‘is military’…
Perhaps you’d like to explain how this computer on which I am writing ‘is military’…
Media is often for entertainment and to make a buck. Considering how the current media continually slams the current govenment, albeit it is often deserved, does not make it military or government controlled, at least not here.
Take a look at France, the government pays for most of the media expenses. How about most of the Middle-East.
If people are stupid enough to believe all the crap the media spews, there is not much we can do, except to teach the children well and to think critcally regarding the lies. This is one of the major reasons I teach.
**Heh… that’s just flat out ironic, but we’re never gonna move on that issue… so let’s move on
**CHOMSKY: I should say, I continued to go root for the high school football team –
the reason I bring it up is, it’s a case of how we can somehow live with this strange
dissonance. I mean, you conform to the society around you, and you’re part of it, and
you have the hot dog and you cheer for the football team. And in another corner of
your mind you notice, “This is insane. What do I care whether this . . .”
DONAHUE: What is insane?
CHOMSKY: What do I care whether this group of professional athletes wins or that
group of professional athletes wins? None of them have anything to do with me.
Chomsky describes the sports system, in all it’s elaborate nature as aiding to consent manufacturing… it is not inherently ‘military’ but the ‘wars’ we see on the court or whatever… 2 sides going head to head, under the North American system it aids in what Chomsky talks about in MC
**Keep in mind too, I’m usually talking about North America… whereas you live in Europe. Anyways… 50% of Americans have some sort of perscription drug medication. (the last time I checked that stat was admittedly like last year… but I haven’t heard otherwise since) 50%… doesn’t that seem a little odd? And who is getting a share out of these huge profits? The government hellbent on spending billions a day on war.
*The computer thing is tricky… if you’re using windows then it’s a breeze, windows has so many vulerabilities and inherent flaws… in fact the only thing windows’ piss poor programming is good for is that it breaks down with attempting massive number crunching <— this can be used for nukes and other bad things.
Just to name a few…
-Any windows search you perform is transmitted to microsoft so long as you are online…
Webcams can be used by an external party to take pictures or record, even if the external light is not on during this type of data acquisition
-Any msn/hotmail message is recorded/run through some type of filter.
-Windows itsself is build to fuck up…especially the baser programs like wordpad and stuff… so that you’ll have to buy office and things like that.
Windows aside… if someone wants to get into your computer… they’re probably going to do it (some secrets you gotta keep in your head). I mean… with the right tools you can read what’s on a computer screen through a wall, from the street. I’m almost sure they have this technology for satelites as well… the walls do not protect us much anymore.
But I’ll conceed if you run like a customized version of linux or something like that… your computer is probably relatively safe.
Siatd, why is it I’m always the one presenting the info and the arguments… and you just quote sentances and write another sentance to attempt to rip it apart? I almost feel like you like conflict…
(btw… sorry for the colors… I thought it would be innovative… but it was really just stupid, but I’m too stubborn to change it)
And that’s what bothers me so much. If the media in the US were so militaristic and controlled by the federal government then there wouldn’t be so many US-run and US-owned papers, magazines and websites claiming this was so. The people who bang on about the oppression of free speech in the US media don’t know what they are talking about, or so it seems. I’m willing to wager they’ve never seen a country with entirely state-run media (such as Stalinist Russia or the present regime in North Korea) and therefore their claims are only true if one compares the modern US media with some fictional, abstract notion of free speech that has never existed anywhere.
I only watch Al-Jazeera for the jokes, or what I take to be jokes. France is a good example because there so much more of the national press is tied to the education system and the Department of Culture, which as you point out funds a lot of media.
Ultimately all media organs are owned and run by someone as opposed to someone else. All are biased, subjective, partial and have an agenda. Even Reuters, who aren’t even a media organ but are simply a company which moves information around. Truth hasn’t a thing to do with it. If you want truth, read Plato rather than Le Monde.
The only answer is for people to be more vigilant when reading newspapers and watching news broadcasts. Which is why I find those who read the ‘meta-media’ organs like mediamatters or any other such thing which ‘exposes the truth about mass media’. They don’t realise that in reading such a thing (and believing in it) they are, once again, back in the game everyone else is playing. They aren’t getting the truth behind the story, they are getting a reading of another reading of a story which purports to be ‘the truth behind the story’.
Someone has already written a whole book about this, though I’ve not read it. This isn’t really anything new.
I’ll remove the colours in your post as I go, not because I dislike them, but simply because I find them distracting.
No offence, but I’d like to dwell on this point because it is central to the whole notion of an epistemology of mass media (which underpins this whole discussion - no?). My point is that you have, I assume, read a few different sources of news in your time, read different newspapers with different political biases, different news articles online, watch different news programmes on the TV… What leads you to believe one set of sources over another if it is not your own political/moral/social/existential biases? Do you honestly think you yourself can adopt a position where you are unaffected by your own hopes and beliefs and analyse each media organ according to consistent epistemological criteria?
Now, you believe what you believe, I’m not per se attacking any belief you hold. But I don’t feel you’ve presented even the slightest bit of evidence for how you’ve managed to find truth in the jungle that is mass media. Do you understand this?
I’m familiar with Chomsky’s work, and this is a typical Chomskian analysis. The problem with his methods is that they are unscientific, there’s no falsifiability to his interpretations. For Chomsky, EVERYTHING is part of manufactured consent. He’s a libertarian anarchist, the most individualistic type of philosopher on the spectrum. For him even the relatively free choice to go and watch a football game is, because it has no inherent value for Chomsky due to not being the spontaneous creation of a free individual, manufactured, consentual, cultural/societal.
Now the irony is that Chomsky is trying to free himself from societal structures but needs language (a societal construct) to try to do this. Chomsky was of course a linguistic scientist (though in my view not a very good one) rather than a structuralist or post structuralist so perhaps you can’t blame him for missing this irony.
The point is that if everything experienced by an individual (no matter how freely it is chosen) is, for Chomsky, manufactured, alien to the rampant and bizarre individualism to which the man subscribes, then there’s no conceivable way of being (existentially or politically) which isn’t like this, hence Chomsky has ruled out the possibility of a solution. He’s actually a pessimist, despite his claims to the contrary.
This is tenuous and you know it is. By that reckoning every possible way of making money that is taxed by the government (and hence is used, in part, to fund warfare) is militaristic. Even selling badges with pacifist slogans on them.
None of this is militaristic. Besides, my copy of Windows XP runs more or less flawlessly (despite my hardware being a bit of a mixmatch in places).
Microsoft isn’t so bad, once you learn the tricks of the trade.
Panopticon…
You are paranoid. You believe all that ‘the US has satellites that can read the brand of a packet of cigarettes on the ground’ nonsense. If that were all true then why are the combined western intelligence forces finding it so hard to find Al-Zaqarwi et al?
Conflict is inevitable. Read Nietzsche and Foucault. And Houellebecq’s brilliant novel Extension du domain de la lutte usually translated as Whatever.
Listen, I post about the topics which interest me. Sometimes I get a response, sometimes I don’t. It’s no more complex than that. I’m currently thinking about Psyque’s latest post re: pedophiles and whether or not I can engage with it in a manner he’ll find acceptable. Such is forum life. I don’t always attempt to rip apart people’s posts, but I do tend to find myself disagreeing with most people about something or another. That’s just life, forum or no forum.
