https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/chaos
There IS something happening here.
And what it is ISN'T exactly clear.
For my two kids, I need to keep an optimistic attitude, a common-sense approach to things. But increasingly, it IS difficult. Optimism flies in the face, sometimes, of what is going on out there, none of which me or my kids have power over.
The political right, well, is so wrong.
But it is given this voice by the media, which of course stands to gain monetarily by creating this monster "He said, she said" thing and then "dutifully" reporting on it, blowing it way beyond comprehension. People watch the antics.
And say, "Horror of horrors!"
Heard of Canada's Marshall McLuhan? He said, among other things: "The medium is the message."
Like me, coincidentally, he was born in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and, like me, was raised in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. No wonder he was brilliant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan
The Right. The Left. The media wets itself going out of its way to purportedly "report" every time a politician goes pee.
One, the Left, is more concerned, like Robin Hood, with taking from the rich and giving to the poor. The Right is "All About Me." It is concerned only with making money.
The common good is not the priority. THEIR WELFARE AND COMFORT are the priority.
TV networks like CNN, which are more about appearances and being politically correct as though they are performing some "duty" on behalf of the voters, their viewers, aren't the "Fifth Estate."
They are NOT objective, the foundation of any honest journalistic enterprise. Money buys any type of commodity, even a value.
They report whatever either party wants them to report. The parties have p.r. types to try to make sure of that. This is also true in Canaduh, where I'm from.
Still, the media package all this and sell it to the viewer as "news." The newsmakers, including the governments, try to shape this "news" as positive.
The media, meanwhile, try to trump themselves up as Ted Baxter, the deep-voiced "only authoritive" news source. This channel's better than that one. This paper's better than that one.
The news sources themselves, meanwhile, have public relations b.s.ers selling well, bullshit, if you'll listen, manipulating and evading the truth as they go.
Journalists are left to read from "prepared" (read approved) statements that say nothing and leave citizens (voters) scratching their heads.
I am a retired journalist and have had enough arguments with conscienceless p.r. types to say that as my opinion. And this IS my blog.
They put the bleebs on TV, their talking heads. They say what they're hired to say. They make no secret of the fact they're "experts" from each party.
And the media, invariably, lets them. It's not often a journalist will say, "I call bullshit on that statement."
They regurgitate the party line. They laugh and tell jokes. They're SO clever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59O7NmCjY-I
In MY mind, p.r. types are like the ever-smiling vacuum cleaner salesman knocking on your door during supper. You want to slam the door in their face because you don't want the bullshit company line from them.
You want the facts. You want answers to your questions. Four people have just died on a roller-coaster THEY approved as safe. You don't want to hear anything BUT about that. YOU have to be polite, but firm and DEMANDING.
A p.r. person's job, invariably, is to make his or her firm appear in a good light, no matter what. Even if the news DOES NOT put them in a good light. YOUR job is to get the facts, and tell them.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/180268/Bullshit-Factor
http://www.squidoo.com/why-do-people-believe-bullshit
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/bullshit
Well said!!
ReplyDeleteThanks, girl!
DeleteWell, I have to disagree, Chris, with what strikes me as a sweeping generalization about what journalists do("They report whatever either party wants them to report."). If that's the case, how do you explain Watergate? Too long ago, you might say. Okay then: what about the relatively recent Robocalls scandal here in Canada? Two reporters broke that story (about automated phone calls from a Cdn political party-- telling voters to go vote-- at the wrong polling station, which invalidated their votes), and continue to report on it. Most recently, what about the Senate expenses scandal? Are the media reporting what political parties tell them to report on this important story? No, they're not. There are many, many other examples. Toronto mayor Rob Ford. Or the corruption of civic officials in Quebec (three mayors-- one in Laval and two in Montreal-- have now resigned). Is this not due-- at least in part-- to revelations first reported by the media? Even the mayor of Winnipeg is under investigation, isn't he? Did the Wpg media bring this to the attention of the people of Winnipeg? I'm not saying the media is blameless (viz., Rupert Murdoch, Newscorp, and tapping of phone lines in the U.K. At least it led to the demise of that flagship rag of his), but consider both sides: it's just not all "bullshit." Media has an important role in democratic societies, and we should hold them to account for it when they don't. The rise of "social media" has become one of the ways to do this. And now social media is becoming part of mainstream media-- just watch TV for an example of the "convergence" that Mr. McCluhan wrote about.
ReplyDelete-- Doug
First, thanks Doug, especially for being so discerning. Accurate points and good ones. But a caveat: I should have written to include this aspect CAN and DOES exist. But it is the exception, in my experience. The stuff you're talking about is the gold of the journalism industry. It is the diamond in the rough, so to speak. But it is the exception. I am referring more to the mundane; the government news release which is about some department minister for ball-scratchers (I am teasing, obviously) sending out a press release heralding how some minister, with one hand tied behind his back and blindfolded, leapt a tall building in a single bound and sacrificed himself at the altar of human greatness to lobby for a school or other government structure or policy for his riding. Thousands of times over the years, such press releases crossed my desk. Invariably, after reading them, I would crumple them up and throw them out. I was in journalism, not public relations. My thing was the news, not advertising for something that maybe affected 1% of the readership I was writing for.
Deletewell okay Chris, but most government announcements do not benefit 100% of any population anyway. And government has an obligation-- nay-- a responsibility to inform the public about what it's spending taxpayer funds on-- one announcement at a time, if need be. Governments issue 1000s of news releases every year, the hugely massive majority of which are not reported. I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be...just a fact. Are they timed to coincide with certain other public or political events? Certainly. But such is the nature of politics in any democracy or would-be-democratic country.
ReplyDelete-- Doug
Fair enough, Doug, and there is some understanding and admitting that government departments NEED to inform the public, which elected them and which it hopes elects them again, what it is doing. But I'm sure even YOU would agree that, in a sense, in their zeal to get re-elected, governments are like the door-to-door smiling salesman, who talks only about the advantages of his product and how your life will be made SO MUCH better because of their policies, which have ABSOLUTELY NO DETRACTORS. Remember, I was writing about The Bullshit Factor. I am simply confirming what any moron would assume: That governments have big, expensive p.r.-like departments that are all about votes and getting votes for the next election. A positive spin is necessarily put on everything. Journalists are there to say "hold on. This is bullshit and conveniently forgets to say this. Or that." I am not saying people should throw themselves off a cliff because they would be duped otherwise. I think they should understand that a reputable journalist outlet gives them the WHOLE story, not just one side, which again, I maintain is most often bullshit.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: I would just phone up a minister to get his or her own take for a story, not rely -- if given the choice -- on a government handout, its p.r. machine.
DeleteYes, the door-to-door salesman part does make politics just like marketing: distasteful indeed...
ReplyDelete- Doug
Doug: I am certainly NOT saying the jobs of politicians or information officers, is in any way unimportant. In fact, it's crucial. Ideally, we SHOULD know exactly what we're getting for the taxes we pay. It's like if I went out and spent $40,000 on a car that had a defective engine. I would expect restitution or SOMETHING for what I paid to give me transportation when I desired it. That's why you buy a car. In the same way, I am paying taxes for services I expect. And I expect a government that is completely see-through and does what's right and doesn't evade responsibility like Harpo did with Duffy and Wallin. They have made a mockery out of democracy and will be crushed like ants by elephants in the next election. Is the damage control p.r. aspect wavering, at OUR expense? Nope. It's that door-to-door salesman routine, or the super wow-wee elixir they're peddling, getting their damage-control machine into ultra high-gear at taxpayer expense.
Delete