4 ms·

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 gu

by 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...
  - harryh 13y ago
    > see that pervasive surveillance without meaningful oversight is always, always abused at some point I think that being more specific and using more examples would help a lot here. It's one thing to say "this will be abused" in some sort of abstract way. It's another to point to specific detailed examples of abuse (either here or in other similar societies). I'll take it as a given at this point that a bunch of my emails and phone calls are sitting on an NSA hard drive somewhere. How is that going to come back to haunt me? Keep in mind that the guys on the other side of the argument are using this as a specific negative outcome: http://derecjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Twin-Towers.jpg http://derecjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Twin-Towers... That's your competition.

by graedus 13y ago

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...
- harryh 13y ago
  > see that pervasive surveillance without meaningful oversight is always, always abused at some point I think that being more specific and using more examples would help a lot here. It's one thing to say "this will be abused" in some sort of abstract way. It's another to point to specific detailed examples of abuse (either here or in other similar societies). I'll take it as a given at this point that a bunch of my emails and phone calls are sitting on an NSA hard drive somewhere. How is that going to come back to haunt me? Keep in mind that the guys on the other side of the argument are using this as a specific negative outcome: http://derecjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Twin-Towers.jpg http://derecjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Twin-Towers... That's your competition.