The Nutcase Across The Street
Reflections On American Politics
Media Effects
What one thing, more than anything else, drives conflict? I suspect it is the media. The media loves conflict and presents everything within that framework. Consider when Senator John McCain made his “hundred years war” comment (15). Speaking of how long we might have troops still in Iraq, John stated that we might very well station a permanent base there for deterrence as we have on the Korean peninsula. In this description, he mentioned that we might be in Iraq for a hundred years. I knew what John was talking about when he said it. I knew what he meant. I knew he didn’t mean that he actually intended for us to be there that long, let alone continue hostilities for that long, yet the pundits in the media portrayed it this way.
In the meantime, then-Senator Barack Obama responded to his comments, making it clear to his supporters, who tended to be more anti-war, that we would not be continuing hostilities indefinitely, but must instead bring the war to a swift close. Obama never promised to pull out before we had finished our objectives, but wanted to illustrate a difference in emphasis between him and McCain. I understood what he was talking about. I knew what he meant. He was showing that it was important to him to end the war soon. I knew he never meant to suggest that McCain actually thought hostilities would last that long (hostilities were already well on their way down by this time), yet that is how the pundits in the media portrayed it.
While John and Barack disagreed on many topics, this was one on which they merely made different points of emphasis. The media, however, turned the whole thing into a virtual scandal, half of them claiming that Obama had twisted McCain’s words dishonestly, and half of them claiming that McCain had actually intended to keep us fighting for a hundred years.
Our worldviews are the products of every bit of information we absorb. Our parents, teachers, clergy, and peers all have their influence long before we begin to listen to Michael Moore and Michelle Malkin. It is not enough to get everyone to listen to the same political analysts to agree. Who one chooses to listen to, who one deems a reliable source of information, how data is processed, and the way evidence is approached are the more important issues.
Psychologists have long known that the way people react to information depends in part on the information they have been previously fed. Mere words and images can alter moods – even outside of awareness. Giving one a test containing the words “Florida” and “wrinkle” beforehand increase the likelihood that one will walk slower than average afterward (16). In the same way, I suspect, people with certain life experiences are predisposed to be more receptive to certain arguments than others. Likewise, one who watches the television series The Rockford Files will be more receptive to news stories that portray the police negatively, whereas one who watches Chips will not. Every little thing can affect us. One may grow up seeing a Listerine commercial featuring a bottle swinging through the jungle on vines and conclude that jungles are generally full of swingable vines. One may see an episode of Family Matters wherein Harriette tells Carl that it’s dangerous to wake a sleepwalker, and take this as fact. One may hear the joke contrasting the Mafia and the government (one is organized), and come away with the impression that it is a common impression that the government is generally incompetent. Does the cartoon Captain Planet make children more likely to grow up into environmentalists? This might be a phenomenon worthy of more study.
The news media covers isolated stories without historical context or future analysis. Sometimes they give a biased picture, sometimes they miss things, and they’re almost always boring. This is why people like me turn to opinion shows like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Of course I know they’re biased, but at least they report on things I care about and explain them in terms I can understand. Rather than simply reporting on isolated cases, they compare and contrast long-term trends. While the news simply reports the number of years and number of casualties in Iraq, Rush will also report on how long we occupied Germany after World War Two, and the number of casualties in the United States (due to murder, car accidents, et cetera). This gives a deeper perspective that most in the mainstream media do not.
I can’t trust the media. I wish I could do my own research, reading up on what the bills debated in congress really say, and interviewing experts to determine their long-term effects, but this is impossible. I work full time. The Patriot Act is longer than most books. Besides, most of those bills are written in convoluted legalese, and a lot of them don’t end up passing. Can you really afford to read both the house and senate versions of the health care bill when neither might pass? Also, C-Span is boring as hell. I almost think they make it that way deliberately so no one will pay attention to how our money is spent.
Access is limited, too. I tried searching WhiteHouse.gov for information on Ken Feinberg’s job description. I wanted to see what his actual powers were and the wording of the charter that created his department. The Republicans call him a “pay czar” and make him sound spooky and dangerous. I don’t want to trust Republicans, but this time I have no choice. I can’t find anything on him beyond some very vaguely-worded ideals put forth by Tim Geithner when he introduced him. Not only do I not know where to go to search for information, I don’t even know who to ask that might know, nor do I know who might tell me who to ask. If I distrust the Obama administration and turn to the Republicans for answers, it is his own fault for not making things more clear.
Of course, the law that passes might not be the law the public sees. It depends who the public listens to. Obama has been accused of lying about the very content of the legislation being debated (courtesy of Joe Wilson). When the president’s word cannot be trusted, can we trust any posting the government puts out? Is a written statement any more trustworthy than a verbal one? Fox News has also been accused of lying about the content of the legislation being discussed. What makes them any less (or more) trustworthy than Obama? I don’t know who to believe sometimes. When you can’t trust the media or the officials in government, who can you trust? Anarchists? Ouija boards? Stephen Colbert?!?
Sometimes a member of a legislature might not vote for a good bill because they are holding out for a better one already in the works. This is rarely the story that gets reported. Usually all that is mentioned is how they voted against a good bill. Voting records are not detailed enough to give the type of information necessary to judge those running for office. Sometimes, otherwise good bills are tainted by very bad provisions (often referred to as “poison pills”). Sometimes these are even snuck in on purpose (I have been told) so an opponent will be seen voting against a good bill, or so one will have an excuse to vote against a bill they secretly didn’t want to pass anyways. Whether these rumors are true is not important. The very fact that we hurl these rumors at each other promotes an atmosphere of dirty tricks and incivility.
All this could be avoided if the media were more thorough and less partisan, but that won’t happen any time soon. This is why I wish people listened to each other more, to fill each other in on things they might have missed.
In the meantime, then-Senator Barack Obama responded to his comments, making it clear to his supporters, who tended to be more anti-war, that we would not be continuing hostilities indefinitely, but must instead bring the war to a swift close. Obama never promised to pull out before we had finished our objectives, but wanted to illustrate a difference in emphasis between him and McCain. I understood what he was talking about. I knew what he meant. He was showing that it was important to him to end the war soon. I knew he never meant to suggest that McCain actually thought hostilities would last that long (hostilities were already well on their way down by this time), yet that is how the pundits in the media portrayed it.
While John and Barack disagreed on many topics, this was one on which they merely made different points of emphasis. The media, however, turned the whole thing into a virtual scandal, half of them claiming that Obama had twisted McCain’s words dishonestly, and half of them claiming that McCain had actually intended to keep us fighting for a hundred years.
Our worldviews are the products of every bit of information we absorb. Our parents, teachers, clergy, and peers all have their influence long before we begin to listen to Michael Moore and Michelle Malkin. It is not enough to get everyone to listen to the same political analysts to agree. Who one chooses to listen to, who one deems a reliable source of information, how data is processed, and the way evidence is approached are the more important issues.
Psychologists have long known that the way people react to information depends in part on the information they have been previously fed. Mere words and images can alter moods – even outside of awareness. Giving one a test containing the words “Florida” and “wrinkle” beforehand increase the likelihood that one will walk slower than average afterward (16). In the same way, I suspect, people with certain life experiences are predisposed to be more receptive to certain arguments than others. Likewise, one who watches the television series The Rockford Files will be more receptive to news stories that portray the police negatively, whereas one who watches Chips will not. Every little thing can affect us. One may grow up seeing a Listerine commercial featuring a bottle swinging through the jungle on vines and conclude that jungles are generally full of swingable vines. One may see an episode of Family Matters wherein Harriette tells Carl that it’s dangerous to wake a sleepwalker, and take this as fact. One may hear the joke contrasting the Mafia and the government (one is organized), and come away with the impression that it is a common impression that the government is generally incompetent. Does the cartoon Captain Planet make children more likely to grow up into environmentalists? This might be a phenomenon worthy of more study.
The news media covers isolated stories without historical context or future analysis. Sometimes they give a biased picture, sometimes they miss things, and they’re almost always boring. This is why people like me turn to opinion shows like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Of course I know they’re biased, but at least they report on things I care about and explain them in terms I can understand. Rather than simply reporting on isolated cases, they compare and contrast long-term trends. While the news simply reports the number of years and number of casualties in Iraq, Rush will also report on how long we occupied Germany after World War Two, and the number of casualties in the United States (due to murder, car accidents, et cetera). This gives a deeper perspective that most in the mainstream media do not.
I can’t trust the media. I wish I could do my own research, reading up on what the bills debated in congress really say, and interviewing experts to determine their long-term effects, but this is impossible. I work full time. The Patriot Act is longer than most books. Besides, most of those bills are written in convoluted legalese, and a lot of them don’t end up passing. Can you really afford to read both the house and senate versions of the health care bill when neither might pass? Also, C-Span is boring as hell. I almost think they make it that way deliberately so no one will pay attention to how our money is spent.
Access is limited, too. I tried searching WhiteHouse.gov for information on Ken Feinberg’s job description. I wanted to see what his actual powers were and the wording of the charter that created his department. The Republicans call him a “pay czar” and make him sound spooky and dangerous. I don’t want to trust Republicans, but this time I have no choice. I can’t find anything on him beyond some very vaguely-worded ideals put forth by Tim Geithner when he introduced him. Not only do I not know where to go to search for information, I don’t even know who to ask that might know, nor do I know who might tell me who to ask. If I distrust the Obama administration and turn to the Republicans for answers, it is his own fault for not making things more clear.
Of course, the law that passes might not be the law the public sees. It depends who the public listens to. Obama has been accused of lying about the very content of the legislation being debated (courtesy of Joe Wilson). When the president’s word cannot be trusted, can we trust any posting the government puts out? Is a written statement any more trustworthy than a verbal one? Fox News has also been accused of lying about the content of the legislation being discussed. What makes them any less (or more) trustworthy than Obama? I don’t know who to believe sometimes. When you can’t trust the media or the officials in government, who can you trust? Anarchists? Ouija boards? Stephen Colbert?!?
Sometimes a member of a legislature might not vote for a good bill because they are holding out for a better one already in the works. This is rarely the story that gets reported. Usually all that is mentioned is how they voted against a good bill. Voting records are not detailed enough to give the type of information necessary to judge those running for office. Sometimes, otherwise good bills are tainted by very bad provisions (often referred to as “poison pills”). Sometimes these are even snuck in on purpose (I have been told) so an opponent will be seen voting against a good bill, or so one will have an excuse to vote against a bill they secretly didn’t want to pass anyways. Whether these rumors are true is not important. The very fact that we hurl these rumors at each other promotes an atmosphere of dirty tricks and incivility.
All this could be avoided if the media were more thorough and less partisan, but that won’t happen any time soon. This is why I wish people listened to each other more, to fill each other in on things they might have missed.