|
|
I happened to be a viewer, when the network television stations managed to squeeze in live coverage of President Clinton's State of the Union Address for his second term of office. Minutes preceding this, a commentator on one of the stations remarked with a sense of urgency about how difficult it would be for them to maintain exclusive coverage without interruption of the speech, since that same evening an announcement of O.J. Simpson's latest verdict would take place. I was shocked to hear that this would evoke any competition, since this statement to the public occurs only once in four years, whereas this country has already been spoon fed the O.J. Simpson trial coverage ad nauseam. In a country with a homicide rate that far surpasses that of any others' on the planet, why has this case been getting more publicity than even a formal statement to the public by the President? My view is curious, like an outsider looking in, after having lived abroad and having made a determined decision years ago to stop watching television. I wondered why there has been so much more blow by noseblow coverage of this particular murder? Is it because the star actor in this news sitcom has had what it takes to achieve celebrity in the great spectacle of public sports, so that the publicity ratings for viewing this drama are higher? Perhaps he is somewhat of a prized gladiator, as far as our 20th century media circus is concerned. Or was this case molded and primed to be an example of a racial outcry? If so, it is a rather inappropriate target, misleading us from what it actually is, the last fatal attack after a series of incidences of domestic violence. It has nothing to do with the color of skin of the perpetrator nor of his notoriety. As a television viewer that evening anticipating hearing the State of the Union Address, I got the impression that this "verdict" was virtually as important, if not more so, than the President's delivery. My question is, why has the media groomed this case to appear so important? Or, are we, the public, really so apathetic about political events that we really do prefer to follow the sitcom of a star athlete's demise for our vicarious entertainment?
There exist news programs and radio broadcasts that give in depth coverage of worldwide events; however, many of those presented by the major television networks seem to throttle the content around what is more action packed or attention getting. It seems the media does not merely relay news coverage as the news surfaces, but makes calculated decisions about what to inform or withhold from the public's view. It's an insidious process of maneuvering what we see. Often the recipe of the day appears to be to keep people entertained and to tug their attention towards or away from certain material which a particular body of decision makers deem effectual or profitable. Promulgating this point of view is Noam Chomsky, expressed in his documentary film released several years ago "Noam Chomsky and the Media, Manufacturing Consent", which arose from his own extensive research about how the media operates. Emanating from this most influential instrument of communication, the television, there is much more than meets the eye.
Besides the content, the style of news, and advertising to a quintessential degree, consists of such short blasts of information in such brief duration, that we have only a few moments at best to digest the content. This form, with its' speed of delivery, precludes real thoughtful apprehension of the subject matter. The quicker the images flip by, the more distracted we are, and the less time we have to think for ourselves about the content of the message in order to reach any conclusions
We are the culture of prime time. Primed to not ponder too much beyond what is immediately before us. Gaining perspective through various travels abroad, it has been difficult to avoid the impression that Americans as a whole, seem to be much less informed or interested in political, social and environmental events within our own country and throughout the world, compared to most of our neighbors in Europe. We appear to be ensconced in our own bubble of fantasy. It isn't so ironic that our most noted export throughout the world is our audio visual mastery of the imagination. Our talented producers in the world of film, television and advertising, capable of conveying information in such a way that it precludes and subjugates reality, have most of our own public dangling within their reign. The corresponding tools of this country's media business, the 'stars', have been projected into a kind of hero worship. They are thrust into the domain of the public, whether they are athletes, actors or models of the fashion industry, as the pawns used to sell products. Those whose business it is to mystify and promote, make sure that the lives of these stellar individuals are the avocation of everyone. It is through them that advertisers are able to reach us, the buyers, with ideas about what kinds of actions to emulate and what kinds of things to buy. These stars are the beacons that beam a material consumerism mania to the general public. The image is one that perpetuates a dimness as far as awareness about ones own motivations, spiritual values or compassion for other living organisms on the planet. Most of the businesses that are marketing the stars, follow the manipulating strategies of domination through repetition, with perpetual subliminal advertising through associating meanings and images that virtually have little to do with one another, but manage to conjure an insipid desire. The public consciousness becomes bloated with floods of these images, like an industrial strength cleaner which neatly vacuums up any competition of thought. It's a monopoly game as far as dictating the norms of taste among spectators.
The embryo of this television and advertising success arose through Hollywood and the motion picture industry in the beginning of the twentieth century, when the realization emerged of how images on screen could potentially captivate and mystify an audience. But I question how this medium has evolved here in America as far as the bulk of Hollywood's influence. Most of the television shows I've grazed through recently, with only a few exceptions, advertise typically selfish values and unsympathetic attitudes towards others. Beyond being vehicles for marketing images, most shows portray very narrow views of what being human is about. Rather than using the medium to educate people and to reinforce positive values or caring attitudes to encourage growth in the individual, they market competitive and disruptive ones that ensure growth in the marketplace. The predominant message is that acceptance by others is acquired not through content, but through form alone. By emulating the glamorous images and lifestyles before us, we too, will have it all. Happiness, glory, wealth, sex appeal, love, friendship, popularity... So that the authentic worth of an individual is leveled to what he or she can buy or flaunt, rather than anything a person develops within, through his or her own practice. And the realization that time and effort are the main ingredients of a person's achievement in any particular fete, are ignored and replaced by the message of the quick fix alternative. Of course, this implies a purchase, for the ubiquitous $__.95 and involves no personal effort. No sweat, no panic right! But who was it, Einstein, that said, "genius is 1 % inspiration, and 99% perspiration".</>
quick fix alternative
I admit that as a kid I was a television junky myself, and learned during this mesmerized phase to compare myself to the array of sparkling images of glamorous people and lifestyles whom I was lead to believe were worth looking up to and trying to be like, to which I endlessly fell short. Under this artificial backdrop, I learned to diminish my own worth and undermine that which was unique in myself. Fortunately though, I have been able to extricate myself from this tangled web of misinformation, waning myself from paying so much attention to the various images polluting my perceptions, to which young people are among the most impressionable. What is unsavory, is that using these lopsided renderings of reality through consumer pumping hype, the media maneuvers to inform people that they are not okay the way they are and are not in control of their own lives. And when a person believes that they have no choice and no hope, they don't bother to attempt to try anything to affect change in the whole picture. The frightening thing is that these messages about how to live and interact and operate with others, are communicated throughout the rest of the world. I believe that there's something inextricably connected to the tailors of the media industries in this country, that President Clinton's State of the Union Address delivered in a speech that evening slid through the publics' viewing screens and right through their minds. Most television viewers are not able to hear, much less remember, what is being said.
Regardless of how compelling his speech, with its' enthusiasm for driving change, I sense that its' content as well as many events in the political and social domain in this country, are barely audible to most. Assuming that a large chunk of this nation watches television in which the focus of the viewer is sandwiched between millisecond spots and hype, a person's orientation becomes so scrambled by fleeting impressions and minimal content that one's attention span is diminished as well as one's capacity to reflect in the long run. I was quite impressed with President Clinton's speech because he idealistically mapped out what he'd like to achieve and appealed to all of us to help, stressing that what needs to be accomplished necessitates the contribution of each of our efforts, not just those of a particular department of the government or of an organization. Again and again he used the word 'challenge', asking all of us to participate in the changes that we would like to create. He was applauded continuously by the by-partisan members of the Congress and Senate in his audience as he enumerated his aspirations of what our country needs, in both domestic and foreign affairs. He mentioned that all citizens need to take responsibility as teachers, students and as workers to do our part in trying to influence change where we can. His messages were sound ones, one of which was asking us to recognize and appreciate that since the beginning of this country's history, America has been a nation of immigrants. Our population has continued to be comprised of diverse racial and ethnic groups, and that this is in fact our strength. We must continuously attempt to put aside prejudices and fears, stated Clinton, to look instead at the positive value of having a country who's wealth is in it's diversity. This is ironically a radically different message than what we receive from our media magnates. In most television shows and movies generated by Hollywood's standards, often the same lead people are marketed to play leading roles. They are typically a selected breed whom are preened and injected for the pre packaged dramas. Many of these stories reveal that success and glory don't involve much effort or discipline or even much participation, but that having the right image is essential. There are of course exceptions, but many films are examples of a compromise in storytelling, a tradition that has been prevalent in every culture. History documents that there have often been particular groups of people who have abused their power; delivering messages in the form of ritualized stories that compromise facts to solidify the purposes of those in power, which is to remain there. Stories can be told to share information, assist, guide or support people just as easily as they can be told to control and manipulate. The point of many producers in these commercial industries conducting this consumer train of thought, often seem to be lodged in misleading and diverting us from knowledge, rather than guiding us to grow and realize satisfaction through self determination. I point to Hollywood as culprits, because after seeing films from most every other country in the world, it seems apparent that most pictures from this 'Hollywood' mecca of the Industry of film making, dramatically fall short of depicting messages of import, that haven't been diluted by absurd formulas and predictable outcomes. So many shows and films perpetrate fears of the unknown and racial prejudices along with other faulty perspectives, instead of leading people to alternatives to the violence. Exceptions to the mainstream are the television programs that are informative documentaries devoted to teaching people about natural environments and scientific subjects, that show facets about other cultures, or the programs that reveal humorous perspectives of our own culture as a form of social commentary.
The audio visual world of moving pictures is a tremendously powerful tool, which like anything, can be used to repair or to damage. Clinton used this devise to impart goals he has for the next four years. One of these was a promise to establish a national education campaign designed to reach out to every school district whether rural, suburban or in inner cities, to bring the quality of education to levels of international excellence. His was a guide for the public to become aware of the rights and values and responsibilities that we have to ourselves and to each other. This training as important and significant to the growth of a member of our society as reading, writing and arithmetic. If we are excelling as far as international academic standards go, but have so little respect for the life of one another that we're killing each other, then there's not much hope for our country, much less the human race. The prominence of suicide and homicide rates in this country obviously have much to do with the fact that it is so easy to purchase a gun, and that these weapons are routinely glamorized accessories involved in the action and drama scenes in so many films and television shows. Regardless of the fact that we Americans live on this large continent bordered by only two other countries, we influence people everywhere in the globe with our massive export of entertainment and the whole machinery of communication. Because the glutton of audio visual imagery that we transport through our music, film, television and advertising industries affects people everywhere on the planet, we need to be responsible for what kinds of messages we're delivering. As Clinton verbalized, economics and power isn't everything in life, there's also the simple act of appreciating life itself and the wealth of the human spirit. Trust in what we are and in what we can aspire to become, could be a very refreshing alternative to fear and hatred.
Maybe a lot of President Clinton's message about challenging ourselves was not only to point out the effort we need to participate in our own change and growth, but to inspire us to see how dramatically we can influence other people in a positive way as well. A large part of his message was asking all of us to step out of our separate delineated roles to take more responsibility for not only our own actions but also as members of a global community; to become involved in our own lives, not wait for someone else to do something. After all, we are responsible, not any figure outside of us. And if we sit back and say that this is not our problem, thinking that flicking the remote control to the next station is the only thing that we need concern ourselves with, or saying that our actions couldn't possibly do anything to help, then we are part of the problem. This country, this community, this household, this workplace, wherever we spend our time, is where we can elect to influence changes where they appear to be needed. We can all contribute in whatever little ways we are capable. This is a true democracy is it not, in which each citizen has the opportunity to participate.
Challenge is a positive word, because its' direction is towards what we can attempt to do, instead of believing that we have no power. We aren't accustomed to stepping outside of our normal routines or schedule of priorities to make room for activities that do not appear to personally effect us, but all of what the President spoke about, personally concerns each of us. No matter where we are geographically, we are affected by what is happening everywhere, particularly if it begins to extend to disastrous proportions. If huge segments of our population are plagued with physical disease or just as treacherous, emotional dis ease, these issues sooner or later will result in undefeated battles, that will make scraps of much that we praise ourselves for having achieved. So much of our population is buried in so much anger, resentment and lack of hope, and so many others in fear, delusion and apathy about the reality of what is going on outside of their own home entertainment centers. Why wait until things get to a decrepit state before attempting to deal with the roots of the problems?
The President stressed all of these changes that he wanted to introduce and maintain, while at the same time balancing our budget, a pretty massive request. The money is there, there's just an exaggerated disproportionate reward system of what we value. Perhaps if we'd peel off just some of the dramatic monetary rewards endowed to those who are the superstars in our worlds of illusion and parcel it over to programs and communities who'd benefit from more than vicarious performances, we'd begin to penetrate to the sources of our social struggles, and nourish the minds and hearts of people. When a famous actor, or sports figure, or model receives millions of dollars for a temporary project, which people who are struggling to affect the lives and spirits of individuals through first hand contact wouldn't make in a lifetime, or fifty, then there is a little bit of imbalance in our evaluation of what is important in our culture.
If instead of distracting ourselves, seeking exterior objects to rescue us from our plights or quick fix ways to deal with situations, and invest instead in our own realities, we might begin to have much more peace of mind. By not trying to change things that we can't and recognize what we can affect, we could act on things and make a difference. By participating in our own lives, we will all genuinely sense that we have control, from within. Offering to another human being not a show of how much more we sparkle because of what we're demonstrating or adorning ourselves with, but of how much we radiate because of what is in our hearts and actions, we could really introduce a completely refreshing sense of community. Sharing talents and realizing that we are all continually in a variety of ways helping, guiding and supporting one another, might actually lodge a few clots into the whole Diaspora of the materialist consumeritus that has been dominating us. With its' competition based rivalry, it succeeds as critical judgments based on material observations drive people against one another. It has been ripping us apart, inside ourselves and from each other. There's nothing saying that we all need to like and agree with each other, but there's a point to where if we're living on this small planet together and happen to be alive during the same lifetime, we need to attempt to respect one another and have in our hearts an empathy for other creatures cohabiting the planet. Cooperation with other peoples' goods and services for survival is not a bad rule to live by, involving respect for each others' right to have the same opportunities to learn and grow. As we take ourselves and the value of what we can do seriously, the less we'll need to numb ourselves with whatever distraction we've chosen, i.e. television, drugs, food. Although seemingly less glamorous or immediate in its' rewards, what could be more exciting or fulfilling than playing a personal part in the drama of affecting change in our own lives, that of our communities and in the earth that we live through. In the long run we will not only feel better to have made a difference, but also proud to have entered the stage that reflects our lifetime, the only one we've got.