The most haunting and omnipotent display of abusive authoritarian discourse comes from the media of America. David Icke has outlined the tactic of our great country quite well and labeled it "Problem Reaction Solution." This works as such: the government brings a problem to our attention, the government shows us how we are to react, the government then presents a solution. In all three cases each point is drilled into everyone's mind via the media until other alternatives seem silly. Why does the country go along with this? Because most citizens believe that the government has authority, that it has authorship, that it has the ability to discourse more meaningful information to us and that since it's our government, that "They would never wrong us," and that, "It's OK, they're professionals, they do this for a living, we should listen to them."
By far the most appalling tactic I have witnessed the government employ is that of overdubbing sorrow-laden, emotional, bleeding-heart orchestral music over their stories. Thanks Fox News. I'm a perfectly competent human being, I know that the death of 33 school children in a freak drunk snowmobiling accident is horrendous, I don't need you to incorporate a soundtrack to it then proceed to a commercial break where, in my weakened emotional state, I will be more likely to believe the Monsanto advertisement.
Emotionally charged power-words (unpatriotic, terrorism, tragic, etc.) are below the belt shots when attached to discourse, especially when it comes from "credible" sources. If CNN tells me that somebody did something unpatriotic, well gosh then I had better not do that something or I might be on CNN and they'll call me unpatriotic! Funny thing about emotionally charged discourse and how dangerous it is, is that it's difficult to avoid. Take this blog entry for example. But is my entry considered discourse? Hmmmm.... Everything (as far as we know at least) is written by humans, therefore it is very difficult to put zero spin on a story.
It's difficult to find objective discourse in this day in age. Globalization is coming, it's practically here. Most of the worlds players are in on it and most of our discourse comes from these factions. We give these powers authority, authorship, and the right to propagate discourse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Where would you expect to find objective discourse? Could such a thing exist?
You've made an interesting paralell with the news media, though I feel as though you're ignoring the fact that the news media are paid to illicit reactions to disasters in order to draw in viewers who crave this kind of humanity infused into their news. Who is bestowing the authority in the case of the media?
Objective discourse can only be verified if it is subjective. If I go somewhere and experience something, I'll know in my heart weather or not I'm misconstruing my perception of it. Whenever someone else tells you something, it will be filtered through his or her beliefs, ideals, and perspectives.
I understand that the news media are paid to provide the viewers/readers with current events, but I feel as though it is being handled incorrectly. People crave this stuff, as you said, but if they 'care' so much about it, why don't they go do something? It's as if it's not about humanity anymore, it's a form of entertainment, and the media up-plays this to exorbitant levels.
It would appear as though the people are bestowing authorship to the media.
Post a Comment