ads sell, the moving images moves us, emotion in media...

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that most people tend to believe that political ads, or bias in news coverage can't have an effect their personal views. I even sometimes think so myself, it is comforting to imagine that no matter how slanted the coverage, no matter how disproportionally importance is given to events of little consequence, while more essential issues are never openly discussed, I can "see through all of that" -- and watch and read news stories with enough detachment to glen the bits of truth and assemble my own (presumably more correct) understanding of events.

But, in fact, this is only so much wishful thinking. Repeated exposure to ideas will cause those ideas to seem more reasonable. Political ads do influence who people vote for-- and not just because people are paying attention to the facts-- but, it's the subtext, the use of images, the feelings that the ads evoke-- these things have an impact. And maybe it is easier to assume they have an impact only on "other people" -- people who are too busy or dull and uninterested to dissect media. But, I think it's naive to assume that.

I've noticed that advertising has a big impact on me. And when I limit my exposure to advertisements I end up spending much less money. Political ideas and questions like "who to vote for" -- can certainly work in the same way.

Short of living in a cave, though, there is little to be done about it. I did stop watching TV since I felt that moving images could have more of an emotional impact and I feel more detached and objective when I read. Ever since I stopped watching TV 12 years ago, my political views began to shift and mature. When I do watch TV (on rare occasions, such as visiting home) I have trouble identifying with any of the opinions presented, this was not the case before I stopped -- I have similar trouble with print media-- thought it is easier to simply stop reading and article-- when there is some kind of news show with presumably diverse guests I'm tempted to wait for someone to voice an opinion I agree with. In most cases it's best to leave the room and not bother waiting since that opinion won't come. And with print media and the internet one can find a far more diverse collection of opinions than you would ever see on TV.

This is (one of a few dozen reasons*) why I avoid TV. Also, it is so much easier to read something I disagree with strongly than to hear it spoken. So by reading I can take in more view points and I feel the presentation of issues is less emotionally wrought.

Do you think some types of news delivery are easier to take in when trying to avoid emotional manipulation?

* I don't really think not watching TV makes you better-- in many cases I totally miss what's going on since I don't know cultural references. Nor am i more productive or anything-- the internet can be just as much of a mind numbing time suck as TV.

Comments

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Because you've implemented a plan and continue to implement it despite the fact that you don't think there's a rational basis for doing so.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing you guys are operating on different definitions of 'better'. Kind of rude to call someone a moron though, do you not think?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Actually very rude, particularly when unprovoked.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in what senses of 'better' you believe to be operational here.

I think I clarified what I meant, that the belief as posited is irrational. If using "acting irrationally" rather than saying "a moron" is less offensive, I'm happy to retract and rephrase and even apologize. My intent isn't to hurt anyone's feelings just pointing out that it's an irrational position.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I suspect the receiver of that remark would deem the "acting irrationally" version more preferable.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Okay, I retract and restate as:
"If you don't think that, you're acting irrationally for giving it up."

I apologize for being offensive.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I've always trusted you to be a good and reasonable guy.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing in the context of the post 'better' would be a judgment of worth, and what she is saying is she doesn't want to judge people based on whether they watch television or not. She likes herself better for not watching it, but is specifically going out of her way to say that she's not saying that it some how raises her worth compared to other people.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

" She likes herself better for not watching it..."

Yeah, things are getting a little incoherent for me here. "She likes herself better?" Not quite sure what that means. but if so, why? In what does the "liking better" inhere? What is the basis for it? People presumably like themselves better for improving themselves, which is what I assume 'better' means, and what has been denied.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

You understand the difference between 'I feel better about myself' and 'I am better than other people' right?

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I understand a difference between feeling better and being better. The former is unjustified unless the latter is also the case. Still not seeing a different sense of 'better' here, just a difference in perceiving X and X actually being the case.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I understand a difference between feeling better and being better. The former is unjustified unless the latter is also the case.

I think the distinction is between feeling better and thinking you are better than other people who don't make the same exact choices you do.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

thinking you are better than other people who don't make the same exact choices you do

Yes, people don't like to say it, but it's incoherent to deny it. If you've made a well considered choice you are saying it's the right thing to do and you're saying that it would also be the right thing to do for someone else in comparable circumstances so at least in that very limited respect you're compelled to believe that you're better than that person for making that choice. I'm with Sartre, when you choose you choose for all humankind. (Of course, that doesn't mean you can't allow the person to make the choice, or respect their choice, but you can't evade the implicit judgement as much as that abhors us)

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Um. No. I honestly think that people are different enough that many choices that would be good for me could be awful for someone else.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

" for someone else in comparable circumstances "

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Most people are not in comparable circumstances.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I disagree.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I don't think you are actually understanding it then ;) It's the difference between a relative self-perception and a relative external comparison. Its the same word, but two different things.

Anyways, I don't think it's a big enough deal to continue, so I'm going to end my comments here.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

That's all I was trying to say! It's not that complex.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I didn't stop watching TV to become a better person. I stopped becuase I got tired of it. I only mention this fact to avoid this post being some kind of "I'm better because I don't watch TV" message. That's not really the point.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Right, but dig at this a bit, if you were doing something that were getting tired of, i.e., that drained you as a person, that left you empty and even misguided and you made a decision to stop doing it, you became a *better* person. And insofar as other people continue to have their minds addled by watching TV, they do not. Just to be clear, I applaud you for not watching TV (contra what was being assumed by others, I wasn't calling you a moron, I was framing as a conditional) and I have no problem saying that all else being equal you're better than people who continue to do so. Why are we always so scared of allowing that one person can be better than another? Fuck it, embrace it, you don't watch the stupid crap they broadcast on TV, an activity, unlike almost anything else you could do, that is almost entirely passive, and because of it you're better than a comparable person who does.

(I think we refrain from acknowledging that a person A could be better than B because we worry, bizarrely, that it somehow violates equality under the law principles of democracy, which is, of course, ludicrous, but nonetheless seems to concern people.)

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

For me the benefits outweigh the drawbacks ... but the drawbacks are real. It's not that ideological.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

It's not that ideological

I don't understand what you're denying here.

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

I don't think there is any benefit to imposing my lifestyle or values on other people to that degree. (Though there are some areas where I do start to impose.) And, frankly, I know people who are admirable who watch a lot of TV. I'm still talking about the impact that it has, I'm not ignoring that--

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

But I was certainly not suggesting that you should impose your lifestyle or values on other people nor was I suggesting that a person who watches TV can't be admirable.