People are ignorant about the media not because news isn't interesting, but instead it is not an option on tv. People are as smart as the people who control mass media want the majority to be.
I contend your point, with the fact that there are other means to achieve awareness of what is going on. Obviously the internet is an option. Nonetheless, I feel that sense all the means of achieving a greater 'awareness' are apparent, it is through their own lack of acting, or curiosity, or ambition, or what ever you want to call it, as the reason of their lack of knowledge.
I agree that the ones who own and control mass media, want the majority to be these mindless zombies. Unfortunately it is the majority which is in agreement with such a perception. For if they simply followed suite, like many sheep do, then their state of ignorance is of their own doing. I believe that it is of their own conscience agreement to be ignorant.
Can you remember how many hours you have invested in attaining the world view that you hold? I mostly agree, but also recognize that it takes a lot of time and thinking and courage to stray from the herd and that many sheep have different worries that would be hard to ignore, and callous to dismiss.
The situation in Wisconsin shows that people need to get hit hard in the face before they start waking up. So, at best we can hope that things get worse quickly before everything is lost and we turn from sheep into boiling frogs.
I hate the mainstream media. People are quick to judge countries that have "state tv" but don't realize that if political parties run the media then it is still state tv. Even worse, you really don't have much of a choice when it comes to political parties anyway. What's the difference between coke and pepsi, the bloods and the crips, the dems and the gop??
Mass media is a business. It cares about money and profit. It is far less ideologically driven than some people like to think.
Even Fox is reported to be considering axeing Glenn Beck because he's no longer seen as a commercial drawcard (too many advertisers deserting his show in recent times, apparently).
Sure - many/most media organisations have political bias. But this is far more about wooing the side of politics that will enable the best commercial situation: wider media ownership rights, more favourable sports rights, the right to run more ads (critical in countries with stricter quality controls on commercial TV, such as the UK) etc.
It really isn't about "keeping the masses dumb". It's more about making them fired up enough to keep watching (so a form of trolling really).
But media can and does move with social mores. Take the (extremely right wing) UK Daily Mail. It now runs some pro-homosexual articles, because - as seen in it's comments - so many of its "middle class, conservative" readers have had to face up to the reality of gay children. The majority national mindset in the UK no longer supports the criminalisation and social condemnation of homosexuality. Same with euthanasia.
You know you're on the internet don't you? The "Everyone disagrees with with me because TV is controlled by the mass media" argument is a little outdated. "Everyone STILL disagrees with me because the internet is controlled by lolcats" should be you're new stance.
okey. I read your post couple of times but I still don't understand what point you are trying to get across.
"People are ignorant about the media not because news isn't interesting, but instead it is not an option on tv"- I don't understand the realtionship between the people's ignorance and an option on tv(?)
and the second sentence, you're saying people are as smart as the big media corporate owners think they are?
wtf?
Can you please clarify your point for me please.
15 comments
3 mikelanzaro 2011-02-26
true
3 RexOfVicis 2011-02-26
I contend your point, with the fact that there are other means to achieve awareness of what is going on. Obviously the internet is an option. Nonetheless, I feel that sense all the means of achieving a greater 'awareness' are apparent, it is through their own lack of acting, or curiosity, or ambition, or what ever you want to call it, as the reason of their lack of knowledge.
I agree that the ones who own and control mass media, want the majority to be these mindless zombies. Unfortunately it is the majority which is in agreement with such a perception. For if they simply followed suite, like many sheep do, then their state of ignorance is of their own doing. I believe that it is of their own conscience agreement to be ignorant.
2 jewdea 2011-02-26
They are simply exercising their free will to be ignorant :P
2 RexOfVicis 2011-02-26
Yes they are, jewdea, yes they are.
1 [deleted] 2011-02-26
Relevant
1 RexOfVicis 2011-02-26
so are you saying that they are conditioned?
0 [deleted] 2011-02-26
It seemed to me you were saying "it's conceivable that this is just the way it really is", ...
Whereas,
1) scientifically, operant conditioning can't be ruled out as a possibility.
2) if it walks like a duck,...
Just sayin...
* linkage
3 yuixitatus 2011-02-26
Can you remember how many hours you have invested in attaining the world view that you hold? I mostly agree, but also recognize that it takes a lot of time and thinking and courage to stray from the herd and that many sheep have different worries that would be hard to ignore, and callous to dismiss.
The situation in Wisconsin shows that people need to get hit hard in the face before they start waking up. So, at best we can hope that things get worse quickly before everything is lost and we turn from sheep into boiling frogs.
2 imatworkprobably 2011-02-26
No, people are as smart as they want to be. Willful ignorance is much more dangerous than malice.
2 fish619407 2011-02-26
I hate the mainstream media. People are quick to judge countries that have "state tv" but don't realize that if political parties run the media then it is still state tv. Even worse, you really don't have much of a choice when it comes to political parties anyway. What's the difference between coke and pepsi, the bloods and the crips, the dems and the gop??
1 wycks 2011-02-26
TV is the message.
TV TV TV TV
1 SonGarwood 2011-02-26
certainly agree. people thrive in the medium they choose the problem is there is very little choice in medium outthere which isnt biased.
1 istara 2011-02-26
Mass media is a business. It cares about money and profit. It is far less ideologically driven than some people like to think.
Even Fox is reported to be considering axeing Glenn Beck because he's no longer seen as a commercial drawcard (too many advertisers deserting his show in recent times, apparently).
Sure - many/most media organisations have political bias. But this is far more about wooing the side of politics that will enable the best commercial situation: wider media ownership rights, more favourable sports rights, the right to run more ads (critical in countries with stricter quality controls on commercial TV, such as the UK) etc.
It really isn't about "keeping the masses dumb". It's more about making them fired up enough to keep watching (so a form of trolling really).
But media can and does move with social mores. Take the (extremely right wing) UK Daily Mail. It now runs some pro-homosexual articles, because - as seen in it's comments - so many of its "middle class, conservative" readers have had to face up to the reality of gay children. The majority national mindset in the UK no longer supports the criminalisation and social condemnation of homosexuality. Same with euthanasia.
1 Aumah 2011-02-26
You know you're on the internet don't you? The "Everyone disagrees with with me because TV is controlled by the mass media" argument is a little outdated. "Everyone STILL disagrees with me because the internet is controlled by lolcats" should be you're new stance.
0 [deleted] 2011-02-26
okey. I read your post couple of times but I still don't understand what point you are trying to get across. "People are ignorant about the media not because news isn't interesting, but instead it is not an option on tv"- I don't understand the realtionship between the people's ignorance and an option on tv(?) and the second sentence, you're saying people are as smart as the big media corporate owners think they are? wtf? Can you please clarify your point for me please.