Yesterday, just for fun – because these things are fun for
me – I questioned – which is not the same as “disagreeing with”, it’s just
questioning… okay, with a soupcon of
disagreement; otherwise, what generated the question? – I wondered, before
passing on to more significant matters – man, am I ever going to get through
this sentence? – I pondered the possible alternative
to “Times have changed”, that being, they haven’t.
Whew! I made it!
And I am never going back.
As a hypothetical alterative to “Times have changed” –
synonymous to many with “Times are worse” – I proposed the possibility that the
loosening of content restrictions in movies and television created a perception that world had changed (for
the worse), the movies and television of the past impeded from showing us the
truth, delivering instead an “unreality” we compare with our current reality and thus consider it “changed”
(by which we mean worse), the easing of the restrictions being the actual change, not the world, which is substantially the same.
Whoa. That sentence
was even longer. I need to be careful here or my respected
readers will be deluged by verbiage. And
no one wants to succumb with other people’s words in their mouth.
Here’s the thing… jumping over some thoughts I can use
elsewhere so why waste your time expressing them here when they are unnecessary
for telling this particular story? Man! Even
that was too long. It’s like I’m cleaning out the “words
refrigerator” and I have to use them all up before they go bad!
Prior to the media “Content Emancipation” the “Powers That Be”
established codes of acceptability that had to be assiduously adhered to or it
was “big trouble.” If not the majority – some of whom objected to the limiting
restrictions and a larger “some of whom” didn’t care one way or the other; put
them together, it’s a majority – a vocal and mobilized minority supported those restrictions, trying to
protect the nation from… seeing itself as it really was, or something.
Whatever the reason, it was seen by many to be a good
thing. I believe the words “filth and
depravity” were bandied about in that context.
Unmentioned was the enforcement of a protective blind eye to intolerance,
corruption and the ignoring of the Fourteenth Amendment requiring “equal
protection” for all citizens, all of which the sanitizing erstwhile entertainment
breezed by, making this a much nicer place than the deprived and disparaged contingent
of our citizenry of the time might have reported it to be.
Okay.
That’s one kind of
sanctioned distortion.
Here’s another kind.
I once attended a lecture delivered by the internationally-renowned
economist Lawrence Summers who, among other lofty achievements, served as a
senior economic advisor to American presidents.
After Summers’ remarks, at the end of which he answered
audience questions but not mine, I raced out and caught him exiting the venue
he was speaking at and I asked him my question, which was this.
“If ‘Supply-Side Economics’ – a belief that lowering taxes
raises tax revenues – was economistical bushwah – I did not use those exact
words – then why are we still talking about it?
Summers explained that economics professionals are not talking about it, ninety-eight
percent of them considering it a thoroughly discredited hypothesis.
“If it is so thoroughly discredited”, I inquired as a
follow-up, “why is it still perceived in non-academic
circles to be ‘an actual thing’?’
To which he replied,
“Because the media keeps it alive, covering stories about
it.”
And there you have it.
A micro-minority opinion – it may not as with the media content
restrictions “rule the day”, but still, it remains alive and a viable
alternative in the debate (even though it isn’t) because…
I don’t know why.
Because journalism is committed to reporting both sides even when one
side is demonstrable “Silly Putty”?
Because as an outnumbered minority position it provides a captivating “David
and Goliath” narrative? Because, having
been conditioned by their partisan media outlets, the minority is suspicious of
know-it-all “experts” who are not “people like us.”
So that’s two ways the media provides a less than truthful
depiction of the situation at hand – by withholding contrary evidence and by
manufacturing “equivalency.” I imagine
there are other ways as well. All
justified by “It’s a business” and “It’s free speech” – the exonerating “get-out-of-jail-free”
card for American undertakings, both laudable and otherwise.
The question we are then left with is,
Being the recipients of such obscuring shenanigans,
How will we ever discover what’s what?
“Look it up”, you say?
Where?
I have enjoyed these last two posts. While my head hurts a bit as I force it through the concepts you've raised and especially getting through the first few sentences of today's post, I find that my head is happier now that it's gone through the exercise. It's kind of like going out for walk on a cold day. You know it's good for you but it's hard to say the experience was all fun.
ReplyDeleteI like your two suppositions about how the media provides a less than truthful depiction of the news: withholding contrary evidence and manufacturing equivalency. I might add another but I think its on a different level. My thought is that the media is obsessed with turning everything into a narrative. They need a story to tell and I think they use the two ways you mention in order to do that. Often, there is a story to tell but sometimes, as Homer Simpson once said, "It's just a bunch of stuff that happened." Sometimes it's just some facts like, "Supply-Side Economics does not work," or "Global Warming is indeed a problem and is made worse by human activity." That's too cut and dried and leaves no room for, "We'll have more on this on the 11:00 o'clock edition."
Thank you, Earl. While you've brought us plenty of laughs over the years, you also bring us insight on the serious side of life.