| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Tony Blankley: Losing our grip on reality |
| 2006-12-20 |
| Before the invention of movable type in the 15th century, the media of mass communication was limited to architecture, paintings, sculpture, images on coins and songs sung by balladeers. Christians learned about the dangers of Hell from the stained-glass stories in the cathedrals. The people might have had an idea of what their king looked like by his minted (usually heroic) image on coins. But they might not have known much about their king or what he was doing that might change or even end their lives suddenly. After the printing press, the sliver of humanity that was literate (mostly clerics, some of the more motivated aristocracy and a few merchants) engaged in continental communication of key new ideas. Slowly over centuries, literacy spread downward and politics and news began to be informed by books, newspapers and pamphlets. Prior to the invention of the telegraph in the 1840s, whatever news there was could move no faster than the trot of a horse — although semaphore, yodeling, smoke-signals and carrier pigeons could move some vital information slightly faster over short distances. In fast succession mass and long-distance communication was advanced by the general availability of telephones (1870s), linotype-fast newspapers (1880s), radios (1920s), televisions (1950s), computers (1970s), the Internet (1990s) and cellular text, audio and now video devices (2000s). |
| Posted by:.com |
| #8 Tony Blankley is one of only a handful of journalists that I trust. The problem with media is: group-think (spin). A decade ago, one pundit reported: democracies rarely invade their neighbors. Ergo: promote democraticization in Muslimania. Facto: given democratic choice and in absense of foreign aid bribery, Muslims chose whoever thumps the Koran with the most relish. Once elected, they claim pious authority for life. As Lenin said: "The purpose of Parliamentarianism, is the destruction of Parliamentarianism." Void of common sense, Jimmy Carter promoted "broad based" governments, inclusive of anti democratic forces. Result: catastrophe in Central America. Lesson: Ignored, as we indulge Taliban-Lite in Afghanistan, and a "broad based" Wahabist-Khomeinist scorpions in a bottle, government in Iraq. Notwithstanding the ease in setting up IED, RPG, sniper traps in a city, we still fight trap-breakout engagements in Iraq cities. And we conduct 24-7 show the flag patrols, which don't make a dent in enemy strength. Consequence: as US equipment deteriorates are a rate of $2 billion per month, and terrorist morale increases exponentially with each success, future conflagrations - including post 9-11 radicalized Latin America - against US allies will result in enemy victories. The corner turns if and when Iran is attacked. Somebody better get a grip. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-20 14:37 |
| #7 wooly, that is |
| Posted by: docob 2006-12-20 10:49 |
| #6 Oh, and I forgot to mention that about a third of the country has gone conspiracy-theory, wolly-headed, BDS batshit crazy. Other than that, tho, everything is fine. |
| Posted by: docob 2006-12-20 10:49 |
| #5 I first encountered this form of insanity with a "marriage counselor" in 1980. He told my, now, ex-wife that how she felt over-rode the fact that how she felt was factually absurd. Then he had the gall to tell me I needed to "adjust my reality to accept her reality" (i.e. fantasy version). And it's only gotten worse since. Add to that the fact that damn near anybody can hang a "counselling" shingle outside their door, and ya end up with a lot of screwy stuff floating around. Extend this squishy feel-good crap to the national level, compounded with identity politics and aggressive group-entitlement mentality (Jeff Goldstein should write a book about that - he has it down cold) and the USA is in deep sh*t indeed. I told him Sears was always looking for top-notch appliance salesmen. I'll have to remember that one! =) |
| Posted by: docob 2006-12-20 10:46 |
| #4 Well, if you stick to a very simple vocabulary -- or script their side out and provide a dialog coach, then "conversations" would be possible, lol. What do you have in mind regards "peculiar"? :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-20 08:59 |
| #3 Then there is the problem that we live in a world where people who don't know what their king looks like and people in the information overload phase are both actors on the same stage. Makes for some peculiar conversations, no? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-12-20 08:49 |
| #2 Beautiful examination, no mo uro. I thought of Toffler's Future Shock - the information overload aspect when I came across it. He expanded on that aspect in Third Wave and Powershift. The people who play Wiki certainly agree with you and Tony - this is Big JuJu. I think the notion floated in the information overload page, that this actually harms peoples' IQ is a little bizarre, but how they adapt, what defense mechanism they employ is important - as you detail. Opting out of the fact-based world and, under the cover of new-age pop psychobabble, choosing to believe that their feelings are equally important, if not moreso, scares the crap out of me. I first encountered this form of insanity with a "marriage counselor" in 1980. He told my, now, ex-wife that how she felt over-rode the fact that how she felt was factually absurd. Then he had the gall to tell me I needed to "adjust my reality to accept her reality" (i.e. fantasy version). I told him Sears was always looking for top-notch appliance salesmen. And that was that, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-20 07:20 |
| #1 This idea - that mass media is something our species cannot or will not understand or use properly for many generations - is not a new one. Kennedy's election in 1960 was undoubtedly the result of an electorate bedazzled by his visual charms. Polling data showed very clearly that those who listened to the debates via radio (ie, got the substance of ideas) went strongly for Nixon, while those who watched on TV (ideas obscured by charisma and sexuality) went for JFK. In the '70's there was the film "Network" which very clearly articulated the notion that people were so enamored with their mass entertainment that they could easily be motivated to absurd or even deadly behavior by said entertainment because they couldn't distinguish reality from propaganda. There was a talk show host in Boston named Jerry Williams who said more than a decade ago (after the advent of 24/7 cable news but before widespread internet use) that people were actually overwhelmed by the amount of information, particularly visual, that inundated them and as a result were opting out of the stream entirely, making them shy away from being engaged citizens. Blankley's article continues this observation. Those who are simply opting out are a growing population. People who trust the MSM for their information stream are manipulated into believing things that are provably false, and are voting on that basis. Those who are able to pick out the truth from the factoids are small in number. Washing over all of this are base animal things like charisma and physical attractiveness which smaller minds cannot put aside for the sake of ideas. Could a bald guy (Eisenhower), or a redhead (Jefferson), be elected today? How about a short guy (Buchanan)? A man who lisps or stutters (Jefferson, again)? A fat man (Arthur)? A guy in a wheelchair (FDR)? Humans have created this wide and overwhelming information stream and certainly lack the ability to use it wisely. I think Blankley's onto something here. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-12-20 06:51 |