Posted by
The Interface on Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:33:52 AM
The MSM coverage of the recent and current Townhall meetings provide the astute student with a wealth of examples of how the “news of the day” can be manipulated to convey the nuances needed to support a particular program rather than the objective reality of the situation. That astute student must, however, be actively engaged in critical thinking (but then this is part of the definition of “astute”), in asking the right questions. As we watch the news coverage and hear the descriptions of the “violent” and “ugly” responses of the crowd, followed by actual video showing just that (well, at least showing an apparent “rowdiness” in the audience; there is still no physical abuse of the speakers), one’s immediate superficial emotional response is, well, these reporters, stalwart bastions of truth, justice, and the American way, must be right! Those audience members are behaving badly, like spoiled brats not getting their own way! Can’t they at least show a little respect for their representatives?
In his magnum opus work entitled How Shall We Then Live, Dr. Francis Schaeffer (Dr. Schaeffer was a Christian philosopher and theologian whose major works were most well known back in the 1970s) describes and analyzes the history of Western Civilization for the major trends in thought as revealed in the art and culture of the time. The book was made into a film series, and one particularly relevant and revealing excerpt regarding media coverage is indelibly etched into my mind and is now available for your edification here:
In light of Dr. Schaeffer’s demonstration, let us more closely examine how the MSM has been portraying these Townhall meetings and ask some pertinent questions they don’t want you to ask. It is actually pretty obvious what tact these reporters are taking. Their word choices clearly indicate their disdain for those speaking up, and their video images focus almost exclusively on the more “rowdy” portions of the meeting. Note what flowed through your mind with the word “rowdy.” What if I had used the word “frustrated” instead? I heard an ABC radio report describe one meeting as “turning ugly.” The only reason for this choice of words, however, was that the speaker was heckled (gasp!) with comments when they failed to answer questions openly and honestly, if at all. Interesting definition of ugly in light of the antics liberals have pulled on conservative speakers over the years.
Query: how long are these meetings? One hour? Two? How long are the snippets of video that we are seeing on our idiot boxes? Thirty seconds? This should tell you that selection is taking place. And the critical choice of what to show will dramatically impact the impression conveyed of what is actually going on at these meetings. Here is another example of the value of talk radio, where eyewitnesses can repeatedly point out that most such meetings start out calmly, with the audience trying to get more than Democratic talking points out of their congressperson, and receiving only dodges of the questions, lies, and smoke screens (the ink cloud of squids comes to mind for some strange reason). Yes, they get frustrated to the point of anger and unwise behavior…after extensive provocation not to be shown lest you understand the situation fully.
Incidentally, also missing from the reports are video of Democratic operatives (union thugs and the like) antagonizing and intimidating. Hmm. I wonder why?
With these points in mind, go back and watch that video excerpt again. Manipulation is merely a matter of selection: selection of what words to use and what images to show to proclaim your side of the agenda, demonize your opponent, and convince mindless zombies of the truth of your position even when the underlying reality is quite the opposite.
Remember these principles and you will be better able to evaluate what you see and hear in these times of strife and turmoil.
The simple believes every word, but the prudent considers well his steps.
Proverbs 14:15