Media = propaganda?
2/7/15 16:20![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI mean, isn't that the case overall, even in countries with free speech and freedom of the press, but with private corporations running the bulk of the media as opposed to governments (as is in the autocratic states)? Really, what's the difference between the two cases, if those running the media can still call the shots and shape the narrative, and thus, the public's perceptions and preferences, as they please? There's news coverage full of subtle and not so subtle attempts at brainwashing, both the ones covering domestic and foreign events - especially in cases involving potential and/or actual conflict of interest (including with other nations or groups of people to whom most standard features of the definition of "otherness" applies).
In today's world, the freedom of speech has practically got to mean the freedom of those who have the resources to get into the minds of the rest of the flock, and direct them into whatever direction they want. You can publish anything you like in a media with a nationwide or a more local coverage, as long as you've got the money to own one. Yes, theoretically every voice is given the space and opportunity to be heard, but some voices are much louder than others thanks to the huge financial backing they're enjoying, so they can easily drown and mute all other voices, especially the dissenting ones.
And the same goes for the so-praised social media, which in some naive minds are supposed to be providing a counter-balance to all of the above. Rich folks owning the major news websites and who've got the budget to spend on online advertising, can prop up their outlets above all the rest, and hire hordes of people to influence social media, and lawyers to find the loopholes in the relevant legislation to conveniently pass through. The blogosphere is actually even more susceptible to distortion than the mainstream media, as there's practically little to no oversight there, and few comprehensive pieces of legislation to provide anything remotely resembling rules and order there. And even where attempts are being made to set up such rules, that process instantly gets hijacked by those same rich and influential guys with the big money, and we end up with lobbyist legislation regarding the Internet.
I think the upside of social media is that a lot of people have learned to not automatically believe the mainstream media any more, and be skeptical about every story they're being served. On the other hand, the downside of it is that the media tends to spread more misinformation than actual genuine information, and the readily available online medium has made that process even more pronounced. In that sense, the media are actually accelerating their own demise, since they're simply losing credibility at a fast rate, the value of their work ever diminishing. The bulk of them have reached a point where they only nominally call themselves "news media", while most of what they're providing is commentary and opinion, or regurgitated opinions of socially irrelevant celebrities without expertise in the field they're commenting on. It has all become a self-parody of what it was intended to be, now spreading outright falsehoods in most of their time.
Granted, some occasional hiccups may happen, but in general, opinion leaders get to be quickly manipulated, utilized or in the worst case, marginalized.
As obvious "non-news" as all of the above may sound to most of you, today the media in the presumably free and open societies has reached a point where it has ceased playing the role it was originally supposed to have (namely: providing information about events and phenomena, and holding the powers-that-be to account on behalf of the public), and has largely become a tool for the use of powerful people with thirst for even more power.
Here's how I basically see it. At any one given moment, there's an uncountable amount of things going on around the world. Whoever gets to choose the dozen or so stories that get reported (and the particular way they're reported) on the evening block, controls the dialogue. That's a version of the "the winner writes history" principle, but on a shorter-term scale. There's also the use of the appeal to emotion tactic which is wide-spread around the media, because perception can often be more powerful than reality, even in the face of evidence about facts contradicting our preconceived biases. The interpretation of the events is what matters more than the facts themselves - because people are lazy or just don't have the time to think in depth, or do a more thorough research about each event they become aware of. The examples of this tendency having significant impact with far-reaching consequences are many, and some are actually quite recent: the run-up to the Second Iraq War, the perception of the Afghan conflict, and all the petty domestic partisan quibbles on essential policy. It's the story that drives the discourse rather than the facts. And there's usually some special interest lurking behind every particular narrative.
And don't even get me started on the inherent attraction to the scandalous, the sensational, and the shocking. Since the narrative that people peddle can be more powerful than any event they're reporting on, even though you're far more likely to be killed or raped by someone you know, the odd story of strangers killing someone completely random is considered by far more compelling and thus more newsworthy - and this is what establishes the whole narrative. Even though we demonstrably live in the least violent time in history, there are still people that relentlessly peddle the narrative of fear, and methodically create the impression that everything is falling apart and there's almost an End of Days coming up sometime around next week.
Yes, all narratives are propaganda - admittedly, just like the one I've been peddling through these lines. Because this, too, is just an opinion, based on personal observations. Whether you'd perceive it as fact, or a hyperbolized distortion of reality, is up to you. Which is exactly the point. The media, including social media like this one, is to be taken with a huge grain of salt - and every user should at least strive to use their brain to process the info they're consuming, rather than voluntarily serving as a dissemination and amplification vessel for it.
In today's world, the freedom of speech has practically got to mean the freedom of those who have the resources to get into the minds of the rest of the flock, and direct them into whatever direction they want. You can publish anything you like in a media with a nationwide or a more local coverage, as long as you've got the money to own one. Yes, theoretically every voice is given the space and opportunity to be heard, but some voices are much louder than others thanks to the huge financial backing they're enjoying, so they can easily drown and mute all other voices, especially the dissenting ones.
And the same goes for the so-praised social media, which in some naive minds are supposed to be providing a counter-balance to all of the above. Rich folks owning the major news websites and who've got the budget to spend on online advertising, can prop up their outlets above all the rest, and hire hordes of people to influence social media, and lawyers to find the loopholes in the relevant legislation to conveniently pass through. The blogosphere is actually even more susceptible to distortion than the mainstream media, as there's practically little to no oversight there, and few comprehensive pieces of legislation to provide anything remotely resembling rules and order there. And even where attempts are being made to set up such rules, that process instantly gets hijacked by those same rich and influential guys with the big money, and we end up with lobbyist legislation regarding the Internet.
I think the upside of social media is that a lot of people have learned to not automatically believe the mainstream media any more, and be skeptical about every story they're being served. On the other hand, the downside of it is that the media tends to spread more misinformation than actual genuine information, and the readily available online medium has made that process even more pronounced. In that sense, the media are actually accelerating their own demise, since they're simply losing credibility at a fast rate, the value of their work ever diminishing. The bulk of them have reached a point where they only nominally call themselves "news media", while most of what they're providing is commentary and opinion, or regurgitated opinions of socially irrelevant celebrities without expertise in the field they're commenting on. It has all become a self-parody of what it was intended to be, now spreading outright falsehoods in most of their time.
Granted, some occasional hiccups may happen, but in general, opinion leaders get to be quickly manipulated, utilized or in the worst case, marginalized.
As obvious "non-news" as all of the above may sound to most of you, today the media in the presumably free and open societies has reached a point where it has ceased playing the role it was originally supposed to have (namely: providing information about events and phenomena, and holding the powers-that-be to account on behalf of the public), and has largely become a tool for the use of powerful people with thirst for even more power.
Here's how I basically see it. At any one given moment, there's an uncountable amount of things going on around the world. Whoever gets to choose the dozen or so stories that get reported (and the particular way they're reported) on the evening block, controls the dialogue. That's a version of the "the winner writes history" principle, but on a shorter-term scale. There's also the use of the appeal to emotion tactic which is wide-spread around the media, because perception can often be more powerful than reality, even in the face of evidence about facts contradicting our preconceived biases. The interpretation of the events is what matters more than the facts themselves - because people are lazy or just don't have the time to think in depth, or do a more thorough research about each event they become aware of. The examples of this tendency having significant impact with far-reaching consequences are many, and some are actually quite recent: the run-up to the Second Iraq War, the perception of the Afghan conflict, and all the petty domestic partisan quibbles on essential policy. It's the story that drives the discourse rather than the facts. And there's usually some special interest lurking behind every particular narrative.
And don't even get me started on the inherent attraction to the scandalous, the sensational, and the shocking. Since the narrative that people peddle can be more powerful than any event they're reporting on, even though you're far more likely to be killed or raped by someone you know, the odd story of strangers killing someone completely random is considered by far more compelling and thus more newsworthy - and this is what establishes the whole narrative. Even though we demonstrably live in the least violent time in history, there are still people that relentlessly peddle the narrative of fear, and methodically create the impression that everything is falling apart and there's almost an End of Days coming up sometime around next week.
Yes, all narratives are propaganda - admittedly, just like the one I've been peddling through these lines. Because this, too, is just an opinion, based on personal observations. Whether you'd perceive it as fact, or a hyperbolized distortion of reality, is up to you. Which is exactly the point. The media, including social media like this one, is to be taken with a huge grain of salt - and every user should at least strive to use their brain to process the info they're consuming, rather than voluntarily serving as a dissemination and amplification vessel for it.
(no subject)
Date: 2/7/15 18:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/7/15 20:39 (UTC)Yes, I'm talking of the likes of the Kochs and Murdoch. The latter's case being particularly ironic, since he's been propping up an ultra-patriotic narrative, while himself being a foreigner to the society he's been trying to influence.
(no subject)
Date: 2/7/15 20:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/7/15 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/7/15 20:42 (UTC)____
* one East European told me so
(no subject)
Date: 2/7/15 20:49 (UTC)