"Their leader? Their servant? Who am I?”

“The great political problem in our modern democracy is how to induce our leaders to lead. The dogma that the voice of the people is the voice of God tends to make elected persons the will-less servants of their constituents. This is undoubtedly part cause of the political sterility of which certain American critics constantly complain. No serious sociologist any longer believes that the voice of the people expresses any divine or specially wise and lofty idea. The voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. It is composed of inherited prejudices and symbols and cliches and verbal formulas supplied to them by the leaders.”

-- Edward Bernays

The political apathy of the average voter, of which we hear so much, is undoubtedly due to the fact that the politician does not know how to meet the conditions of the public mind. He alone cannot dramatize himself and his platform in terms, which have real meaning to the public. Acting on the fallacy that the leader must slavishly follow, he deprives his campaign of all dramatic interest. An automaton cannot arouse the public interest. A leader, a fighter, a dictator, can. But, given our present political conditions under which every office seeker must cater to the vote of the masses, the means by which the “leaders” lead is the use of propaganda. Today, the uber wealthy marionette owns and operates the politician. He has adopted the glitter and the caustic ballyhoo of the campaign and has set up all the sideshows. He has annual dinners that are a compendium of speeches, flags, and bombast. These sideshows are big business.

Political campaigns today are all sideshows, glitter, and speeches – and in the 2012 presidential campaign these speeches have not focused on solutions to the problems we face in America. Instead the millions of dollars have been invested in the manufacture and viral distribution of vile, bitter, ferocious attacks built on rumors, misspokens, and outright lies regarding the other candidate. To be clear, both parties have engaged in these despicable practices. These are for the most part unrelated to the great need to study the public scientifically, to supply the public with an idea, a solid party, a strong leader, a workable platform, and a dynamic performance selling the voters these ideas and solutions as “products.”

Emily Newell Blair states, “The drive for votes is just as an Ivory Soap advertising campaign is a drive for sales." She finds it "amazing that the very men who make their millions out of cleverly devised drives for soap and bonds and cars will turn around and give large contributions to be expended for vote-getting in an utterly inefficient and antiquated fashion."

A gifted politician, who understands the benefits of political strategy, can develop campaign issues, can devise strong planks for platforms and can envisage broad policies and fervently promote them to the voters. Instead, we now have candidates who are beholden to the media moguls who make their millions by manipulating those who are complaint or complacent in our country – the sheeple.

Where is Abe Lincoln? Where is Teddy Roosevelt? Where is FDR? Where is Truman? Where is JFK? Where is Ronald Reagan? Where is Bill Clinton? 

Today’s politician no longer understands the public – nor does he need too, most unfortunately. He is not a man who knows how to secure mass distribution of ideas relating to solutions to the serious problems from which this country currently suffers: unemployment, immigration, poor education, homelessness, health issues and worse -- healthcare issues. Occasionally, a political leader may be capable of combining every feature of leadership, just as in business there are certain brilliant industrial leaders who are financiers, factory directors, engineers, sales managers, and public relations counsel all rolled into one. Good business is conducted on the principle that it must prepare its policies carefully, and that in selling an idea to the large buying public of America, it must proceed according to broad, well-laid plans. The exceptional political strategists must do likewise. The entire campaign should be worked out according to broad, well-laid plans focused on attacking problems – not people. Platforms, planks, pledges, budgets, activities, personalities, must be carefully studied, apportioned and used as they are when a customer-obsessed business desires to give the public what it wants and needs from its leader.

Presidential campaign 2012 has left so many dumbfounded and jaw-dropped, as we watch our country fall into the hands of an inexperienced turned ineffective leader whose every effort -- save for the overspending – has been immobilized by dirty politics beyond usual OR a right-wing extremist (he who is but a heartbeat away from POTUS should his party win) whose integrated system of thought defines only abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is beholden only to himself and to no one else – not women, not children, not blacks, not Jews, not anyone who does not buy into the far right, group-think and mind-less control that this Tea Party espouses. Not much of a choice – in this, the land of the “free.”

Where do you see that agenda setting is evident in this 2012 presidential campaign?

There is more propaganda than ever before due to the proliferation of mass communication in a digital age. In your opinion, has it fed the hunger pangs of “we the sheeple” or solved the problems of “we the people”?

Thoughts?

You are What you Watch. What are You?

“Society has evolved as its technology has evolved. We have been affected by, and affect, electronic media. In other words, ‘the medium is the message.’ The laws of media—enhancement, obsolescence, retrieval, and reversal—demonstrate that technology affects communication through new technology. Society cannot escape the influence of technology.”

-- Marshal McLuhan

We are living in cynical times and opinion polls consistently show that the public’s view of political leaders rates lower than their view of paying taxes. The scandals associated with politics relate to lobbyists, campaign financing, infidelity, deception, conflicts of interest, cover-ups, bribery, conspiracy, tax evasion . . .Watergate, Filegate, Travelgate, Troopergate...the list goes on and on.

The ethical problems associated with politics may never go away, despite efforts to establish ethics commissions and oversight advisory boards in state and national governments – but especially because of the impact media has on our thoughts, words, and actions. Media spreads the “news” that shapes how we see ourselves, and others. How does today’s media shape politics and vice versa?

Technology is often described as the most important influence on society. Few can challenge this claim. The Western world is filled with examples of how technology influences life. For instance, no doubt many of you begin your blogging on a subject near and dear to you (okay, so maybe not everyone). Perhaps you use your iPhone for your appointments or respond to voice mail and email.

When you return home from work, you probably turn on the television or radio to listen to the day’s events. And it’s fair to say you begin and end each weekday in pretty much the same manner, probably unaware of your reliance on communication technology – and the media.

In his book “Understanding Media” (1964), Marshall McLuhan wrote about the influence of technologies such as clocks, televisions, radios, movies, telephones, and even roads and games. Although today we would not classify some of these as technologies, at the time, McLuhan was interested in the social impact of these primary mediated
forms of communication. In other words, what is the relationship between technology and members of a culture?

McLuhan was a Canadian scholar of literary criticism who used poetry, fiction, politics, musical theatre, and history to suggest that mediated technology shapes people’s feelings, thoughts, and actions. McLuhan suggests that we have a symbiotic relationship with mediated technology; we create technology, and technology in turn “re-creates who we are.”

Electronic media have revolutionized society. We are highly dependent on mediated technology. Recall that this theory was conceptualized nearly fifty years ago and, even today, McLuhan’s assertion about technology rings true. Since the public’s growing consciousness of the Internet starting in the mid-1990s, media has directly mold and organize a culture.

McLuhan (1964) based much of his thinking on his mentor, Canadian political economist Harold Adams Innis who felt that major empires in history (Rome, Greece, and Egypt) were built by those in control of the written word. Innis argued that Canadian elites used a number of communication technologies to build their “empires.” Those in power were given more power because of the development of technology. Innis referred to the shaping power of technology on a society as the bias of communication.

People use media to gain political and economic power and, therefore, change the social order of a society...and communication media have a built-in bias to control the flow of ideas in a society. It is nearly impossible to find a society that is unaffected by electronic media. In fact, content becomes biased in the process. Our perceptions of the media and how we interpret those perceptions are the core issues associated with MET.

Assumptions of Media Ecology Theory

• Media infuse every act and action in society.

• Media fix our perceptions and organize our experiences.

• Media tie the world together.

Media—interpreted in the broadest sense—are ever-present in our lives. These media transform our society, whether through the games we play, the radios we listen to, or the televisions we watch.

We are directly influenced by media...media fix perceptions and organize our lives. Media are quite powerful in our views of the world. Consider, for instance, what occurs when we watch television. If television news reports that the United States is experiencing a “moral meltdown,” we may be watching stories on child abductions, illegal drug use, or teenage pregnancies. In our private conversations, we may begin to talk about the lack of morals in society. In fact, we may begin to live our lives according to the types of stories we watch. We may be more suspicious of even friendly strangers, fearing they may try to kidnap our child.

We become manipulated by television. Our attitudes and experiences are directly influenced by what we watch on television, and our belief systems apparently can be negatively affected by television. Some view television as instrumental to the erosion of family values...calling it a “plug-in drug.”

Media Connect the World

McLuhan used the phrase “global village” to describe how media tie the world into one great political, economic, social, and cultural system. Recall that although the phrase is almost a cliche these days, it was McLuhan who argued that the media organizes societies socially. Electronic media, in particular, have the ability to bridge cultures that would not have communicated prior to this connection. The effect of this global village is the ability to receive information instantaneously (think “The World is Flat” by Friedman). As a result, we should be concerned with global events, rather than remaining focused on our own communities. He observes that “the globe is no more than a village” and with that we should feel a connection with and responsibility for others.

The Medium Is the Message

Media Ecology Theory states the content of a mediated message is secondary to the medium (or communication channel). Although a message affects our conscious state, it is the medium that largely affects our unconscious state. So, for example, we often unconsciously embrace television as a medium while receiving a message broadcast around the world. Consider the fact that the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, the train bombs in Madrid in 2004, Hurricane Katrina’s devastating effects in 2005 (and now, Hurricane Isaac), and the 2008 earthquake in China were reported not only immediately after the events but, in some cases, during the events. Many of us went to TV immediately and instinctively, captivated by the horror and the images as they occurred.

We were pretty much unconscious of the medium, but rather consumed with the message. Nonetheless, we turned to television again and again for updates as the days and months progressed, rather unaware of its importance in our lives. This represents McLuhan’s hypothesis that the medium shapes the message and it is, ironically enough, our unawareness of the medium that makes a message all the more important.

Gauging the Temperature: Hot and Cool Media

Hot media are high-definition communications that have relatively complete sensory data; very little is left to the audience’s imagination.

Hot media are low in audience participation. Meaning is essentially provided for us. An example of a hot medium is a movie, because it requires very little of us. We sit down, watch the film, react, maybe eat some popcorn, and then watch the credits. Hot media give the audience what they need—in this case, entertainment.

Unlike hot media, cool media require a high degree of participation; they are low definition. Little is provided by the medium, so much has to be filled in by the listener, reader, or viewer. Cool media require audiences to create meaning through high sensory and imaginative involvement. Consider, for instance, cartoons. Generally, we get a few frames of illustrations and perhaps some brief phrases. Cartoons are low definition and provide very little visual information. We need to determine the meaning of the words and the pictures, and even supply missing words or ideas that are not provided in the cartoon.

Laws of Media

What does the medium enhance or amplify?

What does the medium push aside or make obsolete?

What does the medium retrieve from the past?

When pushed to its limits, what does the medium reverse or flip into?

West, Richard L (2009). Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. Humanities & Social Science.

Is communication technology the end of our cognition?

How might Fox TV “news” or MSNBC TV “news” change how we think about others, ourselves, and the world around us? Consider the impact these “news” sources have on our opinions of others who tune into one while you tune into another. Is this creating connection with others or a greater chasm with others?

Do the types of messages shared via these media encourage you to practice positional bargaining (zero-sum) or principled bargaining (win-win) when discussing hot topics such as politics, education, healthcare, or the economy?

Do you "read" the cartoons? Have the political satirists impacted your view of politicians in any way? Do you note the difference between satire and serious news?

How can Media Ecology Theory be applied to YouTube, Google, and Facebook?

Thoughts?

Guilty as Charged?

“Highly cohesive groups frequently fail to consider alternatives to their course of action. When group members think similarly and do not entertain contrary views, they are also unlikely to share unpopular or dissimilar ideas with others. Groupthink suggests that these groups make premature decisions, some of which have lasting and tragic consequences.”

--Irving Janis

“Groupthink Theory” was developed by Irving Janis in the early 1970s. Groupthink is defined as a way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action. Janis contends group members frequently engage in a style of deliberating in which consensus seeking (need for everyone to agree) outweighs good sense. You may have participated in groups where the desire to achieve a goal or task was more important than developing reasonable solutions to problems. Janis believes that when highly similar and agreeable groups fail to consider fully any dissenting opinions, when they suppress conflict just so they get along, or when the group members do not consider all solutions, they are prone to Groupthink. He argues that when groups are “in” Groupthink, they immediately engage in a mentality to “preserve group harmony” according to Janis. To this end, making peace is more important than making clear and appropriate decisions.

In the development of Groupthink, Janis analyzed five matters of significant national importance: 1) the preparedness policies of the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor in 1941, 2) the decision to pursue the North Korean Army on its own territory by President Eisenhower, 3) the decision by President Kennedy to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs shortly after Fidel Castro established a communist government, 4) the decision to continue the Vietnam War by President Johnson, and 5) the Watergate cover-up by President Nixon.

Janis argues that each of these policy decisions was made by both the president and his team of advisors and because each group was under some degree of stress, they made hasty and what amounted to inaccurate decisions. He interviewed a number of people who were part of these teams and concluded that each of these policy fiascoes occurred because of groupthink. It was discovered that in each of these cases, the presidential advisors did not thoroughly test information before making their decisions.

According to Janis, the group members failed to consider forewarnings, and their biases and desire for harmony overshadowed critical assessments of their own decisions.

Some symptoms of Groupthink include the following:

• Overestimation of the group
•  Illusion of invulnerability
• Belief in the inherent morality of the group
• Closed-mindedness
• Out-group stereotypes
• Collective rationalization
• Pressure toward uniformity
• Self-censorship
• Illusion of unanimity
• Self-appointed mind guards
• Pressures on dissenters

Have you ever been in a small group with too much cohesiveness? If so, did Groupthink develop? If so, how did you know? If not, what prevented Groupthink from occurring?

How widespread is Groupthink? Do you believe society is aware of the problem?

Can you think of current examples of Groupthink that will likely have devastating consequences?

How can Groupthink be applied to popular (but factually incorrect) views on the American welfare system?

Thoughts?

What is Propaganda?

“Man is no Aristotelian god contemplating all existence at one glance. He is the creature of an evolution, who can just about span a sufficient portion of reality to manage his survival, and snatch what on the scale of time are but a few moments of insight and happiness. Yet this same creature has invented ways of seeing what no naked eye could see, of hearing what no ear could hear, of weighing immense masses and infinitesimal ones, of counting and separating more items than he can individually remember. He is learning to see with his mind vast portions of the world that he could never see, touch, smell, hear, or remember. Gradually he makes for himself a trustworthy picture inside his head of the world beyond his reach. Those features of the world outside which have to do with the behavior of other human beings, in so far as that behavior crosses ours, is dependent upon us, or is interesting to us, we call roughly public affairs.”

-- Walter Lippmann

We shall assume that what each man does is based not on direct and certain knowledge, but on pictures made by himself or given to him. If his atlas tells him that the world is flat he will not sail near what he believes to be the edge of our planet for fear of falling off. If his maps include a fountain of eternal youth, a Ponce de Leon will go in quest of it. If someone digs up yellow dirt that looks like gold, he will for a time act exactly as if he had found gold. The way in which the world is imagined determines at any particular moment what men will do. It does not determine what they will achieve. It determines their effort, their feelings, their hopes, not their accomplishments and results.

The very men who most loudly proclaim their "materialism" and their contempt for "ideologues," the Marxian communists, place their entire hope on what? On the formation by propaganda of a class-conscious group.

But what is propaganda -- if not the effort to alter the picture to which men respond, to substitute one social pattern for another? What is class-consciousness but a way of realizing the world? What is national consciousness but another way of seeing the nation?

Try to explain social life as the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain and you will soon be saying that the hedonist begs the question, for even supposing that man does pursue these ends, the crucial problem of why he thinks one course rather than another likely to produce pleasure, is untouched. Does the guidance of man's conscience explain? How then does he happen to have the particular conscience that he has? The theory of economic self-interest?

But how do men come to conceive their interest in one way rather than another?  The desire for security, or prestige, or domination, or what is vaguely called self-realization? How do men conceive their security and what do they consider prestige? How do they figure out the means of domination, or what is the notion of self that they wish to realize?

Pleasure, pain, conscience, acquisition, protection, enhancement, mastery, are undoubtedly names for some of the ways people act. These are the dispositions that work toward such ends. But no statement of the end, or any description of the tendencies to seek it, can explain the behavior that results.

The very fact that men theorize at all is proof that their pseudo-environments, their interior representations of the world, are a determining element in thought, feeling, and action. For if the connection between reality and human response were direct and immediate, rather than indirect and inferred, indecision and failure would be unknown. The chief difficulty in adapting the psychoanalytic scheme to political thought arises in this connection. The Freudians are concerned with the maladjustment of distinct individuals to other individuals and to concrete circumstances. They have assumed that if internal derangements could be straightened out, there would be little or no confusion about what is the obviously normal relationship.

But public opinion deals with indirect, unseen, and puzzling facts, and there is nothing obvious about them. The situations to which public opinions refer are known only as opinions.

We must look at how the larger political environment is conceived -- and how it can be conceived more successfully.

What is a normal social career...or one freed from suppressions and conventions? Is society the sort of thing that corresponds to the conservative idea of what is normal, or the sort of thing that corresponds to their idea of what is free? Is society the sort of thing that corresponds to the liberal idea of what is normal, or the sort of thing that corresponds to their idea of what is free?

Both ideas are merely public opinions.

The world that we have to deal with politically is out of reach, out of sight, out of mind. It has to be explored, reported, and imagined. The pictures inside the heads of human beings, the pictures of themselves, of others, of their needs, purposes, and relationship, are their public opinions. Those pictures that are acted upon by groups of people, or by individuals acting in the name of groups, are Public Opinion -- with capital letters.

What are some of the reasons why the picture inside so often misleads men in their dealings with the world outside? 

There are factors that limit their access to the facts:

1) The artificial censorships -- the limitations of social contact, the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs,

2) the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages and the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world, and

3) the fear of facing those facts which would seem to threaten our established routines.

Lippmann, Walter (2004.) Public Opinion. Public Domain.

How is this trickle of messages from the outside affected by the stored up images, the preconceptions, and prejudices which interpret, fill them out, and in their turn powerfully direct the play of our attention, and our vision itself?

How is the individual person the limited by messages from outside? 

How is that person’s opinion formed into a pattern of stereotypes that identify with his own interests as he conceives them?

How are opinions crystallized into what is called “Public Opinion”? 

How is National Will, a Group Mind, a Social Purpose, or whatever you choose to call it, formed?

Thoughts?