The Five Myths that Reinforce
a Manipulative Message
A manipulative
message (as earlier said) has to be “natural”, occurring “inevitably” AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THE EVENTS that PROMPTED the MESSAGE – and doing that can be
somewhat difficult. Though the average person rarely bothers with scrutiny,
some enlightened people do – especially with controversial issues. Any flaw in
its TIMING and DELIVERY can expose it, as much as it would a flaw in its
creation. Thus, for a message to successfully influence the public’s mind, it
must work behind ALL the five myths that Schiller details. But in reading them,
one would ask: how true is the reality behind each?
- The Myth of Man’s Unchanging Nature
With Man’s wrongdoings reported 24/7 (murders,
robberies, political scandals, etc.), it lends the impression that the public
can do nothing. Man’s evil nature is so fixed that reforming him is impossible.
But of course, Man CAN change – provided he is given the genuine, appropriate facts
and the encouragement to take action upon them. The myth aims to desensitize
(i.e. be passive) the masses to acts of wrongdoing – thus, keeping the status
quo’s corrupt activities unhampered. But passivity isn’t limited to physical
inaction on an issue. Automatically resorting to inappropriate solutions,
without thinking critically of it, is another kind of passivity – that of
mental inaction. It’s the result of the masses being willfully denied the
behind-the-scenes facts of an issue. At the same time, they’re influenced to
support a biased view of it. They then end up taking a course of action they
believe suitable – based on what they’ve been led to believe. Subjecting
political figures to trials by publicity is one instance of exploiting this
myth. Just because the news says a public official is accused of a crime, he is
already adjudged guilty even before a verdict is delivered – the conclusions
being based solely on what was written. Those rash conclusions on character by
the public are what brought down Quirino. Of course, there never really was a
“golden arinola”. But because of that popular perception, Quirino didn’t stand
a chance in the elections. (Elections are an instance of people taking action
without critically evaluating a choice.) It was to be decades later that
history vindicated him from that cruel gossip.
- The Myth of Neutrality
Are a nation’s societal institutions (i.e. the
government, the media, etc.) really that objective towards a social issue of
the moment? Anyone answering “yes” to that question is really under the myth’s
sway and perpetuating it. The average citizen finds this revelation hard to
swallow, but the reality is that these institutions are run by fallible humans.
They are bound to use their authority to covertly support a side of the issue
they favor. Writer Gemma Bagayaua of Newsbreak exposed the practice of
“envelopmental journalism” in the magazine’s March 2001 issue. Whenever the
election period draws near, SOME enterprising journalists shamelessly sidle up
to politicians, offering to be their spin doctors – shattering the myth of the
media’s objectivity. Schools were been made to indirectly propagate the message
that because of the colonizer’s presence the Philippines became civilized – via
history books that carry a “sanitized” version of its history. Franklin D.
Roosevelt needed to preserve his “honest and fair leader” image while
manipulating the media. For that purpose, he used his secretary, Louis Howe –
especially against the scathing tirades of radio broadcaster, Father Charles
Coughlin.
- The Myth of Individualism or Personal
Choice
Free speech is an illusion, but the myth asserts it
does – claiming as proof the many media companies and the laws permitting open
expression. In reality, not everyone gets to be heard. The media themselves
determine what news and views get reported. They can argue that not everything
is news-worthy, hence their right to be selective. The problem is the
subjective criteria used to pick out material fit for reportage Things get
sinister when some “higher power” themselves dictate the media what news they
should release and how to present them. Justified news blackouts are the
positive side to that, yet then, subjectivity dictates it. Even if they pick
out an “unworthy” item, they would alter it according to the public’s
“perceived” taste. They do so claiming it’s for clarity or saving print space,
but it really alters an honest perspective at the source’s expense – an
instance of denying free speech. New Age teacher Jagad Guru (Chris Butler)
complained of an incident regarding a New Zealand reporter. He was insulted by
the reporter’s act of altering his statements on a topic regarding
spirituality. The reporter says his bosses believed that his topic was
“boring”, justifying the alterations. Nevertheless, everyone’s views in a
genuinely democratic nation have to be openly expressed without prejudice.
- The Myth of the Absence of Social Conflict
According to
Schiller, since the myths of Individualism and Neutrality exist, this myth
existed as a result. Case in point is the aforementioned news blackout. The
premise here is that since there are documented cases of media companies receiving
directives not to cover a specific event (like the operations against Muslim
insurgents); could a pre-planned blackout be possible? If that’s the case, then
anyone who asks if so-and-so happened, he can be told it didn’t exist – because
it isn’t in the news. Again, because of Schiller’s other myths, it could be
true.
- The Myth of Media Pluralism
This last myth is the convergence of the consequences
of the first four in action: quantity isn’t an assurance of finding genuine
objectivity in journalism. The illusion of choices – the many periodicals and
TV channels that proliferate – gives the impression that the public is
guaranteed of it. If one broadsheet or TV channel is too biased, maybe the
others aren’t. The problem lies with the sources themselves – they have the
power to edit, alter or totally censor any detail of an event or issue. Though
reporters present the news of the day from different angles, they’re really
just saying the same thing – they’re forced to make do with what’s available.
No comments:
Post a Comment