THE MEDIA

I don't propose here to either criticise or defend "the media".
It is my intention, rather, to question the validity of our assumptions and expectations
That underly a lot of criticisms of the practises and products of those who work in it.

Media mediate;
That is what they do.
They interpose between us and the event.
That is their function.

There is nothing sinister about this;
The process of communication is one of mediation.
The bottom line of all communication is that human beings cannot transfer experience directly from one to the other.
We cannot connect by ethernet radio or cable and download or upload experience.
There has to be some encoding, the use of a suitable medium, and some decoding going on.
This is true even of communication in the extra-sensory realm --
For human beings at least.
No medium, no message.

In general, there are four kinds of communication, classified by their aim --

1. Communication that Entertains
2. Communication that Informs
3. Communication that Inspires
4. Communication that Empowers

It's my experience that what we call "The Media" manage to do all four,
In about the same proportions as any other forms of communicating.
The Medium is like a vehicle;
How effective it is is up to the driver and passengers.

Now let's get down to some basic realities about The Media.......
The way that it is.
Do the media manipulate?
Yes, of course.
As I'll demonstrate in a moment, manipulation is inherent in the communicating process.
Are the media manipulated?
Yes, and a lot less than conspiracy theorists love to think.
How do the media manipulate?
Media such as newspapers, television, film, radio, and the internet
Must, of necessity, selectively frame, reflect, select and initiate;
They cannot help but do what we all do when we're experiencing anything for ourself --
They view an event or idea from a particular point of view,
They modify what they experience;
They emphasise and de-emphasise,
According to some sense of importance,
Thus framing and skewing the evenness of pure reality.
I repeat, there is nothing inherently nasty about this;
It's the nature of human perception.
The quirks and weaknesses of human communication can, of course, be exploited and abused
Just as we do every day with our friends, family and people we don't like.
The media, being staffed by humans, are subject to the same condition as we are.
Any resistance to the Is-ness of that may be a useful source of self-reflection.

How are the media themselves manipulated?

Obviously by government regulation and political, cultural and religious pressure.

One also has to remember the commercial reality

That our media have to be paid for.

In our free market system

Most media are funded by selling space.

We should not be miffed or surprised then, 

That the pipers give some consideration

To those that are paying them.

Don't bemoan it;

Just be aware of possible constraints or hidden agendas

And make allowances in your perceptions

And the levels of trust that you invest in them.

Spread yourself around

And get a range of views,

Then make your own choices and decisions.

In a country where we have the freedom to shop around for truth,

It is our individual responsibility, if we can't actually be present for an event,

To look for as many different viewpoints as possible.

(That is our responsibility in all of life;)

It's not the responsibility of the media to relieve us of our responsibilities.

Why do we feel so vulnerable to "media manipulation"
Since it is simply not possible for us to personally experience
All the events that may affect some aspect of our lives,
We look to the media to tell us about them.
Problems arise, however, when we allow the media
To replace our own responsibilities to listen, read, explore and think for ourselves,
When we ignore the inherent limitations of any mediated experience.

THE STORY IS NOT THE EXPERIENCE --


-- No more than the menu and the press reviews at your favourite restaurant
Are the meal.

I can tell you the story of my heart operation,
But what you experience will be nothing like my experience of the real thing.

The story is no more like the original event,

Than the moon is like the sun it reflects.

To expect otherwise is to invite disappointment.

This isn't something to get bent out of shape about --

It's one of the givens.

All media commuinicators, consciously or unsconsciously

Have no choice but to do a number of things 

That distort the full reality of what they're observing:-

• They see it from a limited perspective. That is a given. No matter how widely they research and probe, there is always more to be known than they what they see and hear.
• They report and comment either within an existing context, or in a freshly created one; i.e. a perspective from which to view, explore, describe and report. When a context is changed from one report to another, the experience changes, and so does the story. That is the nature of all perception; make the most of it. Look over someone else's shoulder at another newspaper and get another slant.
• No story can tell the whole of even a limited perspective. And each particular medium itself imposes limitations on the  number and extent of the senses that can be used.
• Decisions have to be made about what to include and what to exclude from the story. We may question the integrity and appropriateness of such choices, but those choices must be made.
• Choices have to be made on where and when to cut from one perspective to another.
• Choices have to be made as to which segments or sequences are placed adjacent to each other. All human minds make connections, emotionally and mentally relating things that often have no real connection at all. Juxtaposing images can lead to creating impressions, advertent and inadvertent, that can be far more powerful than the sum total of the parts. Thanks to the bridging function of human minds, editing implies, creates or reinforces links, bridges and connections that may be factual or emotional, accidental or intentional. Serious communicators and media practitioners are very careful, and they can still get into trouble.
• In film and television, choices are made about which images to attach to which sounds. Such decisions can also have an enormous effect on how the story impacts on the audient.

NEWS

By far the largest proportion of so-called news stories originate from the desks of faceless people with axes to grind who've got something to sell, and who want you to experience them or their organisations in a very particular way. In the more serious media, you will find journalists who do not take their blurbs at face value, and ask discomforting questions, which is why pollies and CEO's take classes and surround themselves with minders to deflect and warp questions they don't want to answer. And they're getting daily more brazen about it.

Just about 70% of so-called current-affairs programmes and newsmags emanate originally as "media releases" from PR Spinners or Marketing Managers of corporations and organisations who have something to sell -- the resulting articles are nothing more than advertorials. So-called "info-tainment" travel and lifestyle programmes fall under this heading. I recently watched an episode of a state-based travel programme that has deteriorated into a string of undisguised, paid-for promos for cafes, wineries and B & B's, stopping every 10 minutes or so for a commercial break! Even the ABC is stooping to pass off promos for its programmes as "news" stories in the 7pm bulletin.

But we get the standard of media we deserve:
Lazy, undiscriminating viewers and readers
Licence lazy, deceptive journalism.
We're far too eager to assign to the media the responsibility to do for us our discriminating, thinking and holding business and government authorities to account. We're all too ready, I feel, to assume ignorance as an excuse for laziness of will, and to allow certain media to shape and reinforce our opinions, which we then give the status of gospel truth and ferociously grip onto them to the exclusion of any dissenting alternatives.

We get the media and the political and religious leadership we deserve,
And it takes irresponsibility and a victim consciousness to its absurd extreme
To blame the media for the results of our lassitude.