"For those who stubbornly seek freedom, there can be no more urgent task than to come to understand the mechanisms and practices of indoctrination. These are easy to perceive in the totalitarian societies, much less so in the system of 'brainwashing under freedom' to which we are subjected and which all too often we serve as willing or unwitting instruments."[

Well since the sceptics are out in force, I thought I would post a far more valuable and pertinent guide for clear minded thinking, as opposed to socially brainwashed ideological ranting.

First off I’d like to raise the concept of “Pessimism Syndrome”

People should be aware that media doesn’t portray truth, what it portrays is a representation of truth using a combination of images and words to create a concept of reality. Bad news sells, this is very important to realize. Headline news tends to be oppressive, negative and dramatic. People being stabbed, shot, murder, defrauded and so in is “selling news”, so what you get from media is a very one sided and skewed view of the world.

Imagine every country on earth in a 24 hour day period, and then watch your 30 minute evening news segments. What you will realize is that the news is actually only a tiny fraction of a percent of what actually happened in the world on any given day.

What you are seeing is a “selected” view of what is “most important in the world”. Who decides this importance is the very first question any critical mind should ask. There may well have been 95% good positive things happening in the world and only a tiny % of “stabbings and rapes” however what you are presented as a “whole news entity” is actually a select view of how the world is.

“In 1991 the [Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, DC] did an exhaustive analysis of network news and New York Times stories on the rapidly recovering U.S. economy. An astounding 96 percent of stories about the general economy were negative in tone; pessimism occupied 87 percent of the stories on real estate, 88 percent of the features on the auto industry, and a perfect 100 percent of stories on manufacturing. [Now] the intervening years have produced one of the longest economic expansions of the postwar era, [it] looks positively foolish.”

The second question you should ask is why? Why do media select constantly the negative angle? The answer to that question is simple. There is a fear and negativity agenda in modern media.
This isn’t wrong but any critical person must be aware of its activity. The media plays a role in highlighting social problems and negative events, that’s part of media responsibility and what you receive as news is directly tied to this motive.

Recent studies have proven that even in times when crime is decreasing, the public perception of crime increases. This ties in directly to media acceptance and passive viewing. Because people do not think critically and understand that news is not reality but a tool or presentation, even in positive times they see the negative news and are inclined to believe this means the world is more negative than it actually is.

Another key issue is media ideology. Each media station and paper operates under an idelogy. If you compare the representation of political and sociological “news” across the various forms of media and actually remove the factual data, you will find that the facts are actually the same in all cases. However each presentation has a different slant, this comes from all the filler and semantic text which is added.

In the Times a male might crash his car and be killed, in The Sun a young playboy might wrap his red sports model Bentley around a lamp post in a quiet housing estate. The second version has the same facts however it is “colored” to present them in a very different way. By using the semantics of the coloring words we have a tabloid view that this was some reckless joyride by a rich kid which ended in tragedy. It is not truth, but a perception of truth portrayed by someone else.

“In previous centuries, the Church was the great controller, dictating morality, stifling free expression and posing as conservator of all great art and music. Today we have television dictating fashions, thoughts, techniques but doing it so palatably that no one notices. Instead of "sins" to keep people in line, we have fear of being judged unacceptable by our peers (by not wearing the right running shoes, not drinking the right kind of beer or wearing the wrong kind of deodorant), and fear of imposed insecurity concerning our own identities. Borrowing the Christian sole salvation concept, television tells people that only through exposure to TV can the sins of alienation and ostracism be absolved.”

Not only does this come with immediate dangers but by social handling and our tendancy to enjoy the dramatic, these media presentations are soon told and retold via social inter communication with more and more “drama and color”. The Sun might “imply via coloration” that a playboy ethic was there, we as readers will then retell the story based on our own feelings and soon the truth becomes lost in the illusion of truth. “You here about that spoilt joyrider?”....”yes, he was probably drunk” by a process of Chinese whispers what started as a slant becomes a much distorted image of what was originally there.

“Television has become the resident priest of Trash, catering almost entirely for thrill-seekers with short-attention spans. Adverts are quick and shocking, programs are simplistic and moronic. Although more educated content exists it is unpopular. Thankfully the government takes a strong hand in monitoring domestic channels for content and worth, otherwise I suspect local TV would be almost entirely lost to stupidity & contentless entertainment.”

Another key issue is content. While we all see these soap operas, it’s difficult to separate where reality and TV actually diverge in TV in the modern age. We spend our lives watching actors “portray” a reality of existence out on the screens week in week out. From a very young age this “image of what’s real” becomes very grounded, and by the same sense anything which is outside that sphere of reality becomes alienated from reality itself.

There is a very proven link between reality and the impact of TV reality. Issues that appear in “soaps” tends to become very large issue in the times, whether its racism, sexism, violence, whatever. We see it, we talk about it, we correlate it with what we see in news segments and the process of how we form reality is contaminated by a false sense of what reality is. Again, the greatest danger is that anything existing outside this bubble of truth becomes isolated and obscured, we box it away as “unreality” in the same sense we negate the concept of all the positive aspects of what happens in the world daily, because our news reality only shows us the negatives and the entertaining aspects of life.

“One of the reasons I highlight the effect on mass media on democracy is that the media is a big influence on most of us, frequently greater than both peer pressure and parental controls. How many parents sit their children in front of the TV in their most formative years just to keep them from being a 'nuisance'? It thoroughly informs all of us with specific cultural mores that are stoic, commercialist, short-term, thrill-seeking, unintelligent and moronic.”

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST.




[edit on 30-10-2008 by silver6ix]

"One view, that of Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt school, is that the popular media exist to dull people's minds and get them to accept the work and consumption patterns that are needed to sustain capitalism"

All of this of course ties intently into democracy itself:

“If the masses are stupid, democracy doesn't work. The government has to rule by stealth, tricking the people through things that merely sound good but in intelligent society promoting and doing things that are good, or democracy shoots itself in its foot and causes the downfall of the nation into an anarchic mess. Shallow policies do not make for good government, but, most stupid people vote on shallow issues. The solution is to trick the stupid people into voting for you or to educate them. A good-intentioned deception is nearly always much easier and will never be dispensed with, the only alternative is to restrict voting for uneducated people. This is the dilemma of modern Western democracy!”

This is an issue which has long been mooted as a major issue in modern media driven democracy.

“Politicians come to rely on appearances, slogans and image rather than substance and content. This is because the masses do not have the ability to understand the content, statistics, the sociology of required changes: they only understand the surface patterns, the veneer. You end up with people being concerned with outrage and shock more than issues. Naom Chomsky is an intelligent critic of the way modern democracy works. This employing of "dumbed down" politics, which is really nothing more than a soap opera and just as shallow, is summarized by Chomsky into what was known as the "Mohawk Valley Formula" [Chomsky 1991]: The use of hollow slogans and shallow campaigns for the stupid masses. Because while parties still explore issues and produce in-depth papers and analysis, it's only the intelligent minority that understand them. As a result of stupidity and trash culture, democracy is threatened because the masses votes are not hinged on pertinent factors but on frivolous ones.”

We can see this emphatically in the modern age through voter apathy. The fact is a very small % of people actually know the depth and details of who they vote for. The basis for the vote is based on the campaign slogans, carefully placed one liners, and key “alarmist” issues which can swing a vote one way or the other. A tiny fraction actually read the whole policy and even fewer understand it.
It comes down to whoever wins the media highlighted squabble and delivers the most entertaining performance with the best slogans wins. This is the era of spin politics of course where the true issues have been subverted by the need to appeal to an apathetic public.

We know from TV and News studies that drama, entertainment, shock and fear are what sell to the public, and therefore the campaigns and spins are all designed to tap into this new age consciousness which grips the voting public. They won’t read any in depth policies because nobody cares, if they dramatize a few key issues with nice slogans and argue over it, people latch onto the thrill aspect and are inclined to vote. In US politics for example you will see the “patriotism” card played often in these campaigns and also the “American dream” construct which people relate to.

While this began as a media driven trend, in the modern age it’s become something of a political play thing. Governments no longer need the support of the “people” they just need to entertain and enchant a larger amount of a small % than the other man. Nobody wants to get political because nobody really cares; it’s easier to spin your way into power than to bother seriously persuading the public.

“The low turnout of voters affects the authority of governments who are keenly sensitive to the erosion of their legitimacy. [...] In 1997, New Labour was backed by only 31 per cent of those qualified to vote, voter turnout at this election was the lowest since 1945. [...] The 1999 UK elections to the European Parliament brought a turnout of 23 per cent - and in one Sunderland polling station, only 15 people turned up out of the 1000 entitled to vote. In the 2001 General Election, apathy emerged as the dominant issues under debate - and the turnout was an all-time low of 59 per cent.”

“Large multinational companies are able to outmanouvre and ignore local governments, which sometimes places them above-the-law. Mass stupidity and voter apathy means that the people normally vote (if they vote at all) on short-sighted, shallow and unimportant issues, which reduces the ability of government to make required sacrifices to overcome long-term problems. If the people vote on good-sounding but shallow policies, only good-sounding but shallow (short-term) parties will be elected. This is potentially disastrous and represents the biggest threat to democracy.”

Basically the very premise of media and how we relate to it has eroded democracy on an intelligent level and allowed society to be manipulated and controlled with no more than SoundBits, spin and the illusions of credibility.

“The lack of intelligence in the content of poor quality media has an effect on the quality of democracy; leaders are forced to circumvent the wills of the masses simply because the masses are misinformed and have been prompted to care about shallow issues by the press and TV.”

-----------------------

Chomsky, Naom
"Media Control: The Spectacular Achievement of Propaganda" (2002 2nd ed). Seven Stories Press, New York USA. First published 1991.

Furedi, Frank
"Where Have All the Intellectuals Gone?" (2004).

Russell, Bertrand (1872-1970)
"History of Western Philosophy" (1946).

Crabtree, Vexen.
"An Analysis of UK Trash Culture" (2004).
"Democracy: Its Foundations and Modern Challenges" (2006).

Gross, Richard. "Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour" (1996 3rd ed). Published by Hodder & Stoughton, London UK.

Huesmannm L.R. & Eron, L.D. (1984). Cognitive processes and the persistence of aggressive behaviour. Aggressive Behaviour,

Myers, David. "Social Psychology" (1999 6th 'international' ed). First edition 1983. Published by McGraw Hill.

Great thread! (unfortunately, I think wrong forum, probably belongs in education/media) I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially the parts about how politicians have to resort to slogans and shock and stuff like that because most people are too stupid and/or lazy to find out what's happening in the world. In my opinion, democracy is 'the rule by the stupid majority', and it is why I don't think democracy can work, at least on a large scale. It is possible to have an intelligent small group behave democratically, but educating a large group enough that they can participate effectively in a democracy... well, it's very difficult, if not impossible, because it hasn't been done yet.

Yes to most of this, but the thing is, it's almost trivial: obvious facts that are, in their own way, spun into an unspoken agenda.

Everybody knows, for example, that newspaper groups have a specific political slant; whether people are influenced by that or choose those sources on the basis of pre-existing political leanings is an open question, though I'd suggest the latter. Everybody knows the link between government and big business, and everyone abhors it when the links are unconvered.

Everybody knows that politics has become increasingly shallow and driven by trivial issues, and that minor media concerns can be used by politicians to distract attention from more important events. People are apathethic for a number of reasons, though, and I'd suggest one is that democracy is inherently limited by the political party system. The lask UK election, many people didn't turn out because they were increasingly disillusioned by New Labour but didn't want to vote for the single other party that could replace them, or for the third party, which was effectively a vote for one of the two mains. That was certainly my reason for abstaining.

Everybody knows the news we see is filtered and sieved. You can, of course, get your news from various sources, including online ones, and an intelligent person sieves and filters on their own.

And that's the rub, with media manipulation issues. Most of the ideas (and Chomsky, though a great writer, is also very successful because of this) are very obvious, very appealing, and have the virtue of making you feel more intelligent than everyone else. What they effectively say is: "People are having the wool pulled over their eyes - but not you, my clever friend!". Which I think is dangerous, albeit appealing on first encounter.

I mean, really -

There is a very proven link between reality and the impact of TV reality. Issues that appear in “soaps” tends to become very large issue in the times, whether its racism, sexism, violence, whatever. We see it, we talk about it, we correlate it with what we see in news segments and the process of how we form reality is contaminated by a false sense of what reality is.

How patronising is this? It's effectively saying "other people are dumb, but I see through it". Speak for yourself, silver. Everyone sees through it. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.

Originally posted by silver6ix
Also I believe that knowledge isnt as widespread as you suggest. While educated people may well know in some cases, I can assure you its not the rule of thumb.

As for patronising, unfortunately truth is truth. Theres a very heavy weight of theory behind all of the contests, beyond that it correlates with the polls, statistics and facts of life. Im afraid while it may seem patronising, its simply something which exists in the modern world.

There's a weight of theory, but is there a weight of evidence? I acknowledge Chomsky's filters, but I think they can only go so far. Undoubtably, a political spin can be put on the news, and advertisers can exert pressure, and so on. There's no real argument to be made there.

But, first off, Manufacturing Consent is a reasonably old text: specifically, it pre-dates the internet, which is far harder to filter than conventional news outlets. Ignore a major news story, you'll get caught out. News is now far more grass-roots.

Secondly, what evidence is there that these filters are enormously effective to the extent I think you're implying? Can you think of a single post-90s news story that the media have ignored, rather than simply desperately spun? I can understand a newspaper slanting their coverage in a political sense; there's no doubt they do. But that's a trivial truth, really, and most people are aware of it. I grew up reading the Daily Mail, and am as liberal as you can get. I'd suggest most DM readers choose the paper because it reflects their worldview, rather than receiving their worldview through 'indoctrination' by the paper. (I would suggest the same is often true of reading Chomsky).

Thirdly, what is and isn't being filtered? An argument that the media can suppress entire subjects quickly runs into question-begging; it is unfalsifiable. You could say "the media have suppressed fairies and unicorns", and, by definition, there's no proof for or argument against the idea. Also, I'm curious how you think, say, the Iraq war fits into this framework. How do you think the dodgy dossier, cross-party support, the proliferation of business interests and media manipulation fits in with the millions and millions of people who marched against a foregone conclusion?

And I'm interested in how you're going to tie this into aliens/UFOs. I'd be intrigued to see what your take on that is.

Silver - I don't think my qualifications are relevant, as I don't believe in appeals to authority. I have no respect for it, not least when someone presents a bibliography and says "trust my education" in place of having an argument.

I repeat - and it must surely be a simple request - explain the ID card issue to me. You brought it up as an example, after all, so presumably you must have some ideas. Explain who has laid the groundwork for the acceptance of ID cards over the years, and why, and how. Then explain how the coverage of the recent losses of data fits into that. And how the whole can be described as an effective 'social indoctrination' of the passive population, planned over a period of years.

I'm interested in hearing your theory. If you know a single critical theorist who agrees with your theory, then please feel free to link to them too. Until then, I'd just like you to justify your own example with something other than a CV.