Brown Belt Content
For this belt, we will take a critical look at the media, to observe ethics in the press, TV, radio and the Internet.
Try to imagine people's lives before 1950. Try to imagine the world 55 years ago. Children did not spend all their time in the house or in their bedrooms in front of the television. SIMPLY because TV was not yet popular and practically no one had this habit. If the children weren't watching TV or using the Internet, then what did they do? They played.
Certainly the POWER OF TELEVISION over children is very strong. The power of communication that speaks to them and influences them. NO ONE is immune to more than three hours of audiovisual information from a communication vehicle supported by advertising money.
Joan Ferrés, an information sciences professor, states that television is so important that it is substituting the function of family. Ferrés said that TV has become the mandatory reference point in the organization of family life. It's always available, offering company any time, day or night.
Have you noticed that girls look and act increasingly like women? Is TV programming eroticizing children prematurely? Could this be true? Let's take an in-depth look at the issue. Are TV and radio designed to provide entertainment or information? The correct answer is: TV and radio are mass communication vehicles designed to provide entertainment and information? They serve for both entertainment and news. They can even be used for education. As communication vehicles or medias, TV, radio and even newspapers reach millions of people in a unidirectional type of communication. They are broadcasted to millions of receivers. They are not interactive and are designed to reach the masses. They follow the so-called DIFFUSION PARADIGM. The Internet is different. It follows a NETWORK PARADIGM. Each point can communicate with any other point connected to the network.
One of the big problems with television is not only the low quality of entertainment programming which, increasingly watched by children, helps to develop a taste for an increasingly lower level of culture. The problem is also in news programs which are, in fact, works of advertising. Instead of informing, they try to sway opinion.
The German philosopher Jurgen Habermas (considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century), even in 1960, wrote: "the battle between critical journalism and journalistic advertising, which is employed with the purpose of manipulating, is wide open." For Habermas, instead of informing, the PRESS, controlled by powerful political and economic interest groups, was influencing people. If advertising can make people consume a product, couldn't it create opinions on facts of public interest and politics? Pay close attention to what Habermas said: "Beyond influencing consumer decisions this publicity is now also useful for exerting political pressure because it mobilizes a potential of inarticulate readiness to assent that, if need be, can be translated into a plebiscitarily defined acclamation."
This is one of the greatest problems for the communication vehicle and also for the readers or persons who receive information: TO KNOW HOW TO CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHAT ARE JUDGMENTS OF FACT AND JUDGMENTS OF VALUE. For a clearer understanding of these concepts we will look to our brilliant professor Marilena Chauí.
"What is the difference in the two types of judgments? The difference between Nature and Culture. Nature, we see, is composed of necessary structure and processes, that exist on their own, independent of us: rain is a meteorological phenomena whose necessary causes and effects we can determine and explain."
And what about culture? Lets see what the professor has to say: "Culture is derived from the way human beings interpret themselves and their relationship with nature, giving it new meaning, intervening in it, changing it through work and technique, giving it values. To say that rain is good for plants presupposes a cultural relationship of humans with nature, through agriculture. To consider rain beautiful presupposes a value relationship of humans with nature, perceived as an object of contemplation."
Let's look now at a passage that is fundamental to understanding the serious problem of media manipulation:
"Frequently we don't know the cultural origin of ethical values, moral sense and moral conscience, because we are educated (cultivated) by them and in them, as if they were natural or factual, existing on their own and for their own purposes. To ensure the maintenance of moral standards over time and their continuity from generation to generation, societies tend to naturalize them. Naturalization of morals hides, therefore, the most important part of ethics: the fact that it is a historical and cultural creation."
How does the media treat judgments of fact and judgments of value? THE MEDIA TRIES TO PASS ONE OFF AS THE OTHER. What do you mean? Many reports are opinions, and not things that actually happened. A journalist writes what he believes to be the truth, but he doesn't always tell the truth. Depending on the way it is written, a controversial interpretation on something is presented as if it were an incontrovertible fact.
One of the greatest manipulations in recent history was the US invasion of Iraq. Not even Hollywood could pull this one off... But some say that life imitates art. Two films come to mind in addressing this issue. One of them is called Wag the Dog and the other is called Fahrenheit 9/11.
In democratic countries there are three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. These branches of government are autonomous and work in harmony. Only the legislative branch can pass laws. The executive branch enforces the laws and plans that are passed. The judiciary does not enforce or pass laws, it only interprets and judges them according to current legislation. The FOURTH BRANCH is the media. It is as strong as any of the other three branches of government. This is why people say that the strength of communication is as powerful as a government or court. Uncontrolled power is dangerous.
In the film Wag the Dog: to cover up a sex scandal 11 days before elections, the president of the United States looks for a way to distract the media. In other words, to create an event that would be considered more important and that would attract everyone's attention.
The following commentary is very common among journalists: "for the PRESS a dog biting a poor old woman is not news, but a poor old woman biting a dog could be a big scoop." The media covers sensational things, the uncommon, things that other newspapers don't have... This dynamic leads the media to commit countless mistakes. For example, the DAILY PRESS (newspapers, and TV and radio newscasts) is not interested in providing context or addressing a complex issue correctly. They try to simplify things, in such a way that often times they twist the facts.
The media works with facts and the manipulation of facts. The film Wag the Dog appears to predict what happened years later. LET'S REACTIVATE OUR MEMORY. Why did the United States invade Iraq? What was the alleged reason? After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President George W. Bush declared war on Afghanistan. He alleged that the country was hiding Osama bin Laden and that it was the training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, George W. Bush, shortly after the World Trade Center attack, declared that the terrorism had come from Iraq. What was the evidence? THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. The evidence indicated that the terrorism did not pass through Iraq, except secondarily. But elections were growing near and President Bush decided to start a war against an old enemy of the United States, the old dictator Saddam Hussein. ATTENTION. Bush had two problems: 1) finding a concrete reason to invade Iraq; and 2) convincing the US public that the war was necessary and just.
What did Bush allege to declare war on Iraq? Bush said that Saddam Hussein had NUCLEAR WEAPONS, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, IN OTHER WORDS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Now, after the invasion, we can say with certainty: not even one weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq. To convince the US public, it wasn't enough to say that he had weapons of mass destruction. In another argument used by Bush, he said: "Saddam Hussein is a dictator and disrespects the human rights of Iraqis." Interesting... The United States government, at the same time it was praising the dictator of Pakistan, wanted to destroy the dictatorship of Iraqi...
Saddam Hussein was in fact a dictator. He had in fact exterminated people. He had in fact given refuge to terrorist groups. But WHAT BUSH DID NOT SAY WAS THAT Saddam Hussein gave refuge to terrorist when he was on the side of the United States. Alas, these terrorists had been trained by the CIA. Saddam Hussein had been weakened militarily and didn't have the means to develop weapons of mass destruction.
But really, why is the film Fahrenheit 451 important? "Just as in Fahrenheit 451, the US government propaganda machine produced sound bites of the president using the usual homeland! freedom! America! rhetoric. If you're not with us, you're against us! He also tried to convince us that what Americans do in the world is not only right, but a mission from God."
Did the media act correctly when it encouraged unlimited patriotism? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE: important causes are sometimes only a smokescreen to hide important interests (as for example, the interests of oil companies in the oilfields of Iraq...).
BE CAREFUL. In a democracy, a director like Michael Moore can show the public another version of the facts. In a dictatorship only the official version is disclosed.
ATTENTION. A democracy does not ensure that the press does not manipulate or impede corruption or prevent an individual like Bush from being elected. Only in a democracy can we denounce, demand, catch and demand changes in politics and society.
CHINA for example is a dictatorship. There are no free, democratic elections. There is no freedom of the press, or freedom of association or assembly... In CHINA, to get an e-mail account and access the Internet, people have to register with the police. There are also filters and not all sites can be accessed. How can they do that? By controlling the infrastructure of the Internet. Everything that goes through the backbones of China is controlled by the Chinese government. Outrageous.
This shows that communication vehicles and the Internet can be used to foster the democratization of power and society. If this were not the case, dictators would not try to manipulate, control and even shut down the media.
Have you noticed that girls look and act increasingly like women? Is TV programming eroticizing children prematurely? Could this be true? Let's take an in-depth look at the issue. Are TV and radio designed to provide entertainment or information? The correct answer is: TV and radio are mass communication vehicles designed to provide entertainment and information? They serve for both entertainment and news. They can even be used for education. As communication vehicles or medias, TV, radio and even newspapers reach millions of people in a unidirectional type of communication. They are broadcasted to millions of receivers. They are not interactive and are designed to reach the masses. They follow the so-called DIFFUSION PARADIGM. The Internet is different. It follows a NETWORK PARADIGM. Each point can communicate with any other point connected to the network.
One of the big problems with television is not only the low quality of entertainment programming which, increasingly watched by children, helps to develop a taste for an increasingly lower level of culture. The problem is also in news programs which are, in fact, works of advertising. Instead of informing, they try to sway opinion.
The German philosopher Jurgen Habermas (considered by some to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century), even in 1960, wrote: "the battle between critical journalism and journalistic advertising, which is employed with the purpose of manipulating, is wide open." For Habermas, instead of informing, the PRESS, controlled by powerful political and economic interest groups, was influencing people. If advertising can make people consume a product, couldn't it create opinions on facts of public interest and politics? Pay close attention to what Habermas said: "Beyond influencing consumer decisions this publicity is now also useful for exerting political pressure because it mobilizes a potential of inarticulate readiness to assent that, if need be, can be translated into a plebiscitarily defined acclamation."
This is one of the greatest problems for the communication vehicle and also for the readers or persons who receive information: TO KNOW HOW TO CLEARLY DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHAT ARE JUDGMENTS OF FACT AND JUDGMENTS OF VALUE. For a clearer understanding of these concepts we will look to our brilliant professor Marilena Chauí.
"What is the difference in the two types of judgments? The difference between Nature and Culture. Nature, we see, is composed of necessary structure and processes, that exist on their own, independent of us: rain is a meteorological phenomena whose necessary causes and effects we can determine and explain."
And what about culture? Lets see what the professor has to say: "Culture is derived from the way human beings interpret themselves and their relationship with nature, giving it new meaning, intervening in it, changing it through work and technique, giving it values. To say that rain is good for plants presupposes a cultural relationship of humans with nature, through agriculture. To consider rain beautiful presupposes a value relationship of humans with nature, perceived as an object of contemplation."
Let's look now at a passage that is fundamental to understanding the serious problem of media manipulation:
"Frequently we don't know the cultural origin of ethical values, moral sense and moral conscience, because we are educated (cultivated) by them and in them, as if they were natural or factual, existing on their own and for their own purposes. To ensure the maintenance of moral standards over time and their continuity from generation to generation, societies tend to naturalize them. Naturalization of morals hides, therefore, the most important part of ethics: the fact that it is a historical and cultural creation."
How does the media treat judgments of fact and judgments of value? THE MEDIA TRIES TO PASS ONE OFF AS THE OTHER. What do you mean? Many reports are opinions, and not things that actually happened. A journalist writes what he believes to be the truth, but he doesn't always tell the truth. Depending on the way it is written, a controversial interpretation on something is presented as if it were an incontrovertible fact.
One of the greatest manipulations in recent history was the US invasion of Iraq. Not even Hollywood could pull this one off... But some say that life imitates art. Two films come to mind in addressing this issue. One of them is called Wag the Dog and the other is called Fahrenheit 9/11.
In democratic countries there are three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. These branches of government are autonomous and work in harmony. Only the legislative branch can pass laws. The executive branch enforces the laws and plans that are passed. The judiciary does not enforce or pass laws, it only interprets and judges them according to current legislation. The FOURTH BRANCH is the media. It is as strong as any of the other three branches of government. This is why people say that the strength of communication is as powerful as a government or court. Uncontrolled power is dangerous.
In the film Wag the Dog: to cover up a sex scandal 11 days before elections, the president of the United States looks for a way to distract the media. In other words, to create an event that would be considered more important and that would attract everyone's attention.
The following commentary is very common among journalists: "for the PRESS a dog biting a poor old woman is not news, but a poor old woman biting a dog could be a big scoop." The media covers sensational things, the uncommon, things that other newspapers don't have... This dynamic leads the media to commit countless mistakes. For example, the DAILY PRESS (newspapers, and TV and radio newscasts) is not interested in providing context or addressing a complex issue correctly. They try to simplify things, in such a way that often times they twist the facts.
The media works with facts and the manipulation of facts. The film Wag the Dog appears to predict what happened years later. LET'S REACTIVATE OUR MEMORY. Why did the United States invade Iraq? What was the alleged reason? After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, President George W. Bush declared war on Afghanistan. He alleged that the country was hiding Osama bin Laden and that it was the training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists. Before the invasion of Afghanistan, George W. Bush, shortly after the World Trade Center attack, declared that the terrorism had come from Iraq. What was the evidence? THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE. The evidence indicated that the terrorism did not pass through Iraq, except secondarily. But elections were growing near and President Bush decided to start a war against an old enemy of the United States, the old dictator Saddam Hussein. ATTENTION. Bush had two problems: 1) finding a concrete reason to invade Iraq; and 2) convincing the US public that the war was necessary and just.
What did Bush allege to declare war on Iraq? Bush said that Saddam Hussein had NUCLEAR WEAPONS, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, IN OTHER WORDS, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Now, after the invasion, we can say with certainty: not even one weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq. To convince the US public, it wasn't enough to say that he had weapons of mass destruction. In another argument used by Bush, he said: "Saddam Hussein is a dictator and disrespects the human rights of Iraqis." Interesting... The United States government, at the same time it was praising the dictator of Pakistan, wanted to destroy the dictatorship of Iraqi...
Saddam Hussein was in fact a dictator. He had in fact exterminated people. He had in fact given refuge to terrorist groups. But WHAT BUSH DID NOT SAY WAS THAT Saddam Hussein gave refuge to terrorist when he was on the side of the United States. Alas, these terrorists had been trained by the CIA. Saddam Hussein had been weakened militarily and didn't have the means to develop weapons of mass destruction.
But really, why is the film Fahrenheit 451 important? "Just as in Fahrenheit 451, the US government propaganda machine produced sound bites of the president using the usual homeland! freedom! America! rhetoric. If you're not with us, you're against us! He also tried to convince us that what Americans do in the world is not only right, but a mission from God."
Did the media act correctly when it encouraged unlimited patriotism? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE: important causes are sometimes only a smokescreen to hide important interests (as for example, the interests of oil companies in the oilfields of Iraq...).
BE CAREFUL. In a democracy, a director like Michael Moore can show the public another version of the facts. In a dictatorship only the official version is disclosed.
ATTENTION. A democracy does not ensure that the press does not manipulate or impede corruption or prevent an individual like Bush from being elected. Only in a democracy can we denounce, demand, catch and demand changes in politics and society.
CHINA for example is a dictatorship. There are no free, democratic elections. There is no freedom of the press, or freedom of association or assembly... In CHINA, to get an e-mail account and access the Internet, people have to register with the police. There are also filters and not all sites can be accessed. How can they do that? By controlling the infrastructure of the Internet. Everything that goes through the backbones of China is controlled by the Chinese government. Outrageous.
This shows that communication vehicles and the Internet can be used to foster the democratization of power and society. If this were not the case, dictators would not try to manipulate, control and even shut down the media.
- White Belt Content
- Yellow Belt Content
- Green Belt Content
- Blue Belt Content
- Brown Belt Content
- Black Belt Content