Day 32
MetaPolitics in Media
The newscast is saturated with political talk. But upon examining the talk we find that it is not about the things we'd expect a national media in a democracy to talk about - namely - issues, platforms, and the like.
Instead, the talk is all about strategy. How does so-and-so plan to win in that state? What does this stance do for so-and-so's attempot at capturing the hispanic vote? Which candidate can convince conservaties that he is the most conservative?
The obvious point is that substance is sacrificed for entertainment, personality cults, and fully arbitrary means of decision making. But there is a lot more going on underneath it all.
Let us dive deeply: Upon some thought, it becomes apparent that sways votes around the most is good/bad media focus on candidates. So, say some candidate says something stupid, or un platform-like, or expresses a bit of 'unwanted' emotion, like Hillary Clinton when she shed a public tear at some conference about a month back. The media headlines read "How will Hillary respond to claims that she's too weak to be president?" Those 'claims' are clearly idiotic, but that's not the point. Candidates and parties have all kinds of paid henchmen to make absolutely outlandish claims in the hopes that media outlets will pick up on them. Hillary sheds a tear, and CNN wants it covered, because people like to watch. But CNN needs to dichotomize the story before airing (like every story), so it finds two opposing 'angles' of opinion on the event, and portrays the story such that either one or the other angle is true. Talking heads bicker for 30 seconds. Anchor speculates about how Hillary's candidacy will fare as a result. Next story: Did Ron Paul say that the USA halped cause 9/11? Hear his comments! How will it effect his election chances?
Now here are what I believe to be two rubs. First, CNN picks its stories, and its angles, and its talking heads. The only reason something becomes a candidacy-changing event (good or bad) is because news organizations decide it ought to be. Therefore, the open-ended questions that Anchors and talking heads ask are pre-answered. The answer, previously decided upon, is then rephrased into a question that the viewer is convinced he's answering for himself. News organizations use the decision criterion of ratings. The more people that watch a particular dichotomy/speculation story, the more that story ought to be mirrored in format and ideas.
I think a guy like Foucault might say it like this: Imagine a group of cancer patients going in for an experimental treatment. They have no medical knowledge, and little do they know, every single pill is a placebo. The Doctor goes to each patient separately with wonderfully multi-coloured pills, and says "Here's what this pill with do: it will...(speaks complex medical jargon). And it really should probably work. And please take it. But I'd also like to know whether you think it will work, personally, because the special thing about this pill is that if you believe it will work, it works better."
The doctors never take any tests to see if the cancer has diminished, because they know all the pills are placebos. What they do do, however, is re-consult patients to see how they feel, and guage the relative placebo effects of each coloured pill. Each coloured pill is associated with a particular string of medical jargon spoken to the patients, and none of the jargon actually makes medical sense.
The doctors experiment over and over, until eventually they hone an entire medical language, and discover all the most appealing pill colours. Cancer patients around the world come for this exciting treatment.
The cancer spreads, and in spite of all their self-awareness and independent decision making, the patients slowly die without understanding what's really happening. The Doctors don't know any better either, for their intentions are good, and the notion that cancer spreads all on its own just never fell into the structure of their theories or tests.
And the greatest tragedy of all: The patients believe that their positive outlook, their autonomy, their freedom, independence, and will are what keep them alive.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that we're all 'pawns', or that we're 'spoonfed' what to believe, that we have no power over our lives, etc.
I do believe, however, that the machines of culture can produce very evil ghosts, and this relationship between the viewer, the television, and the democratic ideal may be one of them. Something has grown from this relationship to be much more than the sum of its parts.
The newscast is saturated with political talk. But upon examining the talk we find that it is not about the things we'd expect a national media in a democracy to talk about - namely - issues, platforms, and the like.
Instead, the talk is all about strategy. How does so-and-so plan to win in that state? What does this stance do for so-and-so's attempot at capturing the hispanic vote? Which candidate can convince conservaties that he is the most conservative?
The obvious point is that substance is sacrificed for entertainment, personality cults, and fully arbitrary means of decision making. But there is a lot more going on underneath it all.
Let us dive deeply: Upon some thought, it becomes apparent that sways votes around the most is good/bad media focus on candidates. So, say some candidate says something stupid, or un platform-like, or expresses a bit of 'unwanted' emotion, like Hillary Clinton when she shed a public tear at some conference about a month back. The media headlines read "How will Hillary respond to claims that she's too weak to be president?" Those 'claims' are clearly idiotic, but that's not the point. Candidates and parties have all kinds of paid henchmen to make absolutely outlandish claims in the hopes that media outlets will pick up on them. Hillary sheds a tear, and CNN wants it covered, because people like to watch. But CNN needs to dichotomize the story before airing (like every story), so it finds two opposing 'angles' of opinion on the event, and portrays the story such that either one or the other angle is true. Talking heads bicker for 30 seconds. Anchor speculates about how Hillary's candidacy will fare as a result. Next story: Did Ron Paul say that the USA halped cause 9/11? Hear his comments! How will it effect his election chances?
Now here are what I believe to be two rubs. First, CNN picks its stories, and its angles, and its talking heads. The only reason something becomes a candidacy-changing event (good or bad) is because news organizations decide it ought to be. Therefore, the open-ended questions that Anchors and talking heads ask are pre-answered. The answer, previously decided upon, is then rephrased into a question that the viewer is convinced he's answering for himself. News organizations use the decision criterion of ratings. The more people that watch a particular dichotomy/speculation story, the more that story ought to be mirrored in format and ideas.
I think a guy like Foucault might say it like this: Imagine a group of cancer patients going in for an experimental treatment. They have no medical knowledge, and little do they know, every single pill is a placebo. The Doctor goes to each patient separately with wonderfully multi-coloured pills, and says "Here's what this pill with do: it will...(speaks complex medical jargon). And it really should probably work. And please take it. But I'd also like to know whether you think it will work, personally, because the special thing about this pill is that if you believe it will work, it works better."
The doctors never take any tests to see if the cancer has diminished, because they know all the pills are placebos. What they do do, however, is re-consult patients to see how they feel, and guage the relative placebo effects of each coloured pill. Each coloured pill is associated with a particular string of medical jargon spoken to the patients, and none of the jargon actually makes medical sense.
The doctors experiment over and over, until eventually they hone an entire medical language, and discover all the most appealing pill colours. Cancer patients around the world come for this exciting treatment.
The cancer spreads, and in spite of all their self-awareness and independent decision making, the patients slowly die without understanding what's really happening. The Doctors don't know any better either, for their intentions are good, and the notion that cancer spreads all on its own just never fell into the structure of their theories or tests.
And the greatest tragedy of all: The patients believe that their positive outlook, their autonomy, their freedom, independence, and will are what keep them alive.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not believe that we're all 'pawns', or that we're 'spoonfed' what to believe, that we have no power over our lives, etc.
I do believe, however, that the machines of culture can produce very evil ghosts, and this relationship between the viewer, the television, and the democratic ideal may be one of them. Something has grown from this relationship to be much more than the sum of its parts.
Comments