How people make decisions interests me. People can look at
the very same world I’m looking at and make decisions about things that are the
polar opposite of what I would decide. Are they smarter than me? Do they know
something I don’t? The 2012 mid-term election is a case in point. It’s true the
turnout was low, but people throughout America made a conscious decision to
vote into office the very culprits who were responsible for this country’s
myriad problems. What seems so crystal clear to me is seen through a completely
different pair of glasses by a large chunk of American voters. Why is that?
There is no one answer, of course, but I believe the
mainstream corporate media plays a critical role in shaping and contouring
people’s perceptions about their country, and how they choose to pull the lever
on election day. I’m not breaking any new ground here (See Noam Chomsky’s
Manufacturing Consent for a thorough, well researched analysis of how the media
molds public opinion), but I’m simply trying to understand how and why my own
views differ so greatly from those of my fellow Americans.
After all, I grew up in a solid blue-collar home with
parents who were loving, but not well educated. My father was an auto mechanic
and my mother the stay-at-home parent, a pretty typical household unit in the
nineteen fifties, and one that you would suspect would be a fertile breeding
ground for conservative ideology. I even went to church regularly as a child.
But there was one important variable. Despite his lack of
formal education, my father was a natural born critical thinker and he
questioned things that others around him took for granted. He opposed the
Vietnam War. He would argue for hours with his sister, a devout Catholic, about
the problems with religious dogma. He was a huge fan of Mark Twain, as am I. So
something unusual happened during my upbringing, my interactions with my
parents and the larger world, that turned me to the left politically at an
early age.
It may be my upbringing that has allowed me to elude the
siren song of the status quo. The corporate media is a powerful force that has
many people captivated and under its spell. Since its infancy, television was a
vehicle to sell things, with some entertainment stuck in between commercials to
keep eyes fixed on the screen. Pitching products and services is still a
primary function of the networks, but it has an additional corporate/government
responsibility to de-radicalize Americans and numb them into a state of
obedience.
Tens of millions of Americans rely solely on the major
networks for their news, so the political spectrum they are exposed to both
overtly (i.e. the Sunday news panel shows) and covertly, runs from the far
right to the wobbly center. Progressive views are marginalized and rarely
heard. The so-called liberal press is one of the great myths of our generation.
The media today is a for-profit enterprise that purposefully shapes its news
programs to offend as few viewers as possible and support the institutions and
ideas it considers “mainstream.” This soft, easy to digest pablum is served up
on a daily basis and reinforces already internalized beliefs and biases. It
does not challenge, it lulls. It is a form of hypnotism, keeping viewers in a
certain state of political obliviousness while at the same time, inciting
people to be good little consumers and spend, spend, spend.
Instead of encouraging critical thinking, the news media
emphasizes group think and constantly reinforces the importance of “fitting in”
to be cool, sexy and hip. By ignoring critical voices and a truly comparative
analysis of the political candidates’ positions, viewers are left with little
substantive information, and revert to picking the candidate that most closely
mirrors their personal values, with little understanding of his or her record
or policies.
Look into my giant
eye. You are getting sleepy, very, very sleepy….
1 comment:
Lol, the fact that you think that liberalism is critical thinking exposes you to be hypnotised. Any real event that is not politically correct is either ignored or spinned to conform with the liberal worldview. For example, if you studied the history and hadiths of Islam you would know that it's not a religion of peace. However, to look impartial you would find reasons to blame all religions as the source of conflict, including popular but historically false talking points about the Crusades or Inqusition.
Post a Comment