4 ms·

> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what

by graedus 13y ago

> Neither party cares about the issue because the people don't care And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. But in the never ending search for ever increasing profits that is built into their structure by law, they, like the major political parties are "just giving people what they want" too by chasing ratings in order to gain larger market share and increase advertising revenue. So both intertwined systems, the political system and the mainstream media, are working fine, right?

cinquemb 13y ago
So long as the majority of people believe they have the means to butter their slice of bread while being entertained by the circus… "Believe some say the neon signs by the loudspeakers repeating that everything is fine"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. The status quo in this regard is consistent with her interests. She doesn't need a "corporate-owned media" to make her think that way.
- graedus 13y ago
  I won't deny many such examples exist, but you can't deny that the MSM is nevertheless an influence on large swaths of Americans. Even those that are not so gullible as to accept what they hear on the news as fact unquestioningly, may be influenced more subtly by the range of opinions presented and how they are portrayed. So maybe they invite three guests on to discuss a topic like privacy: one a DoD official, one from a conservative think tank and a centrist writer. Suddenly the range of "acceptable" viewpoints is conveniently narrowed and the remainder is implied to be "fringe". Or maybe they massively inflate the actual threat of things like terrorist attacks (because fear and xenophobia get ratings too) and give it a disproportionate amount of coverage. Now everyone who watches or even flicks by that channel is maybe more likely to talk about it at the water cooler or whatever. This can affect the broader culture, which can in turn influence people who don't even watch the news on TV* So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? Is it possible? Can we get people to understand and care about relevant historical examples? * Not to imply this is the case with your Mom!
  - euroclydon 13y ago
    So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? 'rayiner answered your question: [She] trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. Most people are not concerned about a theoretical invasion of their privacy, instead they would be very concerned with an invasion that has material consequences. Isn't this simple?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Your points are well-taken, but in a democracy it's a hard argument to make to say: "people don't really think what they think they think because of the media." > So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? Is it possible? I think people do care about their liberties and human rights, but they do so in concrete ways. I think you can get people to care by making it more concrete for people. People on HN take it for granted that your average voter should be outraged by the FBI being able to look at someone's Facebook posts. But why? To my mom, Facebook is just one of those things that wrong with kids today--posting half-naked pictures of themselves for everyone on the internet to see. You're not going to get instinctual outrage from her on the issue. With her, you might get some traction on the front that the government might use it to single out people from certain backgrounds. After all, she worries the government holds up her checks because she's got a middle eastern last name. Other others you might get traction on the front the government could use it to single out particular religious beliefs, immigrant communities, etc. Painting with broad brushes, there are ways to take the privacy argument and put it into terms that target Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. But right now it seems like the arguments are couched in the language of young libertarian white techie humanists, and that's just not a major voting demographic...
    - graedus 13y ago
      > Your points are well-taken, but in a democracy it's a hard argument to make to say: "people don't really think what they think they think because of the media." It's not that hard an argument -- there have been probably hundreds of studies on the influence of media on people's opinions and resulting actions. Why do you think advertising is a nearly half-trillion dollar industry worldwide? It's a significant chunk of GDP in the US and UK, for example, and not without reason: advertising through various media consistently makes a measurable impact on the buying patterns of consumers, and it's not exactly a huge leap to apply this to politics[0]. That point aside, I appreciate the insight, and I think you're on the right track as far as thinking about how to make the issues more concrete to people in a personal way. The other, perhaps over-broad human nature question is how to get people care about this shit even if it truly only affects "others" - people of other countries, other social classes, other races and other religions. There are middle-aged, upper class voting people, white ones even, who care deeply that their government detains and tortures mulsim men in secret and not-so-secret prisons without trial, who care if activists are targeted for intimidation or treated similarly to terrorists, who can look at history and see that pervasive surveillance without meaningful oversight is always, always abused at some point and who aren't so scared of terrorism that they vote all their own rights away in order to feel safe. That is a much harder battle. [0] http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/ http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market...
- king_jester 13y ago
  > She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. The status quo in this regard is consistent with her interests. She doesn't need a "corporate-owned media" to make her think that way. This is very important and a strong reason why (some) people are OK with that kind of government. They have trust in the system because the system generally does protect their interests over the interests of other people. But not everyone fits into that class and status. There are whole classes of people whose daily experience is that of gov't at various levels seeking to cause them harm, physically, emotionally, and economically. Political discourse and media representation does not include those people (arguably on purpose) and those people are not the focus of efforts to change how are society is broken and fails to provide prosperity for all its citizens. So long as there are people willing to have comfort and success off of the backs and lives of others, representative democracy has a huge failing point.
- Torgo 13y ago
  Her ability to be empathetic about others that are not like her exists in a social (in large part one-way media) framework that either encourages, or ignores or actively discourages such thoughts. To be passive you have to go with the flow, and in a society that overtly emphasized consideration for all its members, she would too because it would be more work to not care about them. Encouraging extreme passivity is beneficial to making every American a malleable consumer. I think that is our societal pressure.
- specialist 13y ago
  The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. Glad I'm up late reading comments. This is one of the smartest, most astute political commentaries I've ever read.
- mr_spothawk 13y ago
  It's on those of us who believe the government should not be behaving this way to help educate people like your mom about why stifling people like us is a bad idea and why we shouldn't pursue this course of action. I feel like your statements are trying to support an argument against personal responsibility for the status quo. If we don't work to educate our children and those around us, we will continue to have terrible results.

by graedus 13y ago

cinquemb 13y ago

So long as the majority of people believe they have the means to butter their slice of bread while being entertained by the circus… "Believe some say the neon signs by the loudspeakers repeating that everything is fine"

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

> And why don't the people care? Corporate-owned media has a huge amount of influence on what people care about. Again, I go back to my mom because she's the greatest insight I have into the typical voter. My mom doesn't watch the news. Her opinions are her own. She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. The status quo in this regard is consistent with her interests. She doesn't need a "corporate-owned media" to make her think that way.

graedus 13y ago
I won't deny many such examples exist, but you can't deny that the MSM is nevertheless an influence on large swaths of Americans. Even those that are not so gullible as to accept what they hear on the news as fact unquestioningly, may be influenced more subtly by the range of opinions presented and how they are portrayed. So maybe they invite three guests on to discuss a topic like privacy: one a DoD official, one from a conservative think tank and a centrist writer. Suddenly the range of "acceptable" viewpoints is conveniently narrowed and the remainder is implied to be "fringe". Or maybe they massively inflate the actual threat of things like terrorist attacks (because fear and xenophobia get ratings too) and give it a disproportionate amount of coverage. Now everyone who watches or even flicks by that channel is maybe more likely to talk about it at the water cooler or whatever. This can affect the broader culture, which can in turn influence people who don't even watch the news on TV* So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? Is it possible? Can we get people to understand and care about relevant historical examples? * Not to imply this is the case with your Mom!
- euroclydon 13y ago
  So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? 'rayiner answered your question: [She] trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. Most people are not concerned about a theoretical invasion of their privacy, instead they would be very concerned with an invasion that has material consequences. Isn't this simple?
- rayiner 13y ago
  Your points are well-taken, but in a democracy it's a hard argument to make to say: "people don't really think what they think they think because of the media." > So how do we get people to place a higher value on, say, their liberties and human rights instead of fear of the spectre of terrorism? Is it possible? I think people do care about their liberties and human rights, but they do so in concrete ways. I think you can get people to care by making it more concrete for people. People on HN take it for granted that your average voter should be outraged by the FBI being able to look at someone's Facebook posts. But why? To my mom, Facebook is just one of those things that wrong with kids today--posting half-naked pictures of themselves for everyone on the internet to see. You're not going to get instinctual outrage from her on the issue. With her, you might get some traction on the front that the government might use it to single out people from certain backgrounds. After all, she worries the government holds up her checks because she's got a middle eastern last name. Other others you might get traction on the front the government could use it to single out particular religious beliefs, immigrant communities, etc. Painting with broad brushes, there are ways to take the privacy argument and put it into terms that target Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Baptists, etc. But right now it seems like the arguments are couched in the language of young libertarian white techie humanists, and that's just not a major voting demographic...
  - graedus 13y ago
    > Your points are well-taken, but in a democracy it's a hard argument to make to say: "people don't really think what they think they think because of the media." It's not that hard an argument -- there have been probably hundreds of studies on the influence of media on people's opinions and resulting actions. Why do you think advertising is a nearly half-trillion dollar industry worldwide? It's a significant chunk of GDP in the US and UK, for example, and not without reason: advertising through various media consistently makes a measurable impact on the buying patterns of consumers, and it's not exactly a huge leap to apply this to politics[0]. That point aside, I appreciate the insight, and I think you're on the right track as far as thinking about how to make the issues more concrete to people in a personal way. The other, perhaps over-broad human nature question is how to get people care about this shit even if it truly only affects "others" - people of other countries, other social classes, other races and other religions. There are middle-aged, upper class voting people, white ones even, who care deeply that their government detains and tortures mulsim men in secret and not-so-secret prisons without trial, who care if activists are targeted for intimidation or treated similarly to terrorists, who can look at history and see that pervasive surveillance without meaningful oversight is always, always abused at some point and who aren't so scared of terrorism that they vote all their own rights away in order to feel safe. That is a much harder battle. [0] http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/ http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market...
king_jester 13y ago
> She places a high value on social order, trusts the government, and assumes that the government wouldn't use any information they get from her e-mails to hurt her. And you know what? She's right. They won't. The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. The status quo in this regard is consistent with her interests. She doesn't need a "corporate-owned media" to make her think that way. This is very important and a strong reason why (some) people are OK with that kind of government. They have trust in the system because the system generally does protect their interests over the interests of other people. But not everyone fits into that class and status. There are whole classes of people whose daily experience is that of gov't at various levels seeking to cause them harm, physically, emotionally, and economically. Political discourse and media representation does not include those people (arguably on purpose) and those people are not the focus of efforts to change how are society is broken and fails to provide prosperity for all its citizens. So long as there are people willing to have comfort and success off of the backs and lives of others, representative democracy has a huge failing point.
Torgo 13y ago
Her ability to be empathetic about others that are not like her exists in a social (in large part one-way media) framework that either encourages, or ignores or actively discourages such thoughts. To be passive you have to go with the flow, and in a society that overtly emphasized consideration for all its members, she would too because it would be more work to not care about them. Encouraging extreme passivity is beneficial to making every American a malleable consumer. I think that is our societal pressure.
specialist 13y ago
The government pretty much exists to protect middle-aged, upper middle class women like my mom. Glad I'm up late reading comments. This is one of the smartest, most astute political commentaries I've ever read.
mr_spothawk 13y ago
It's on those of us who believe the government should not be behaving this way to help educate people like your mom about why stifling people like us is a bad idea and why we shouldn't pursue this course of action. I feel like your statements are trying to support an argument against personal responsibility for the status quo. If we don't work to educate our children and those around us, we will continue to have terrible results.