You see something, then turn around and read something, then hear something, and CLICK!--epiphany!
For some of us cursed with synthesis, this happens a lot. But lately some things have been happening which for us who synthesize make us wonder if all these seemingly disparate parts don't combine to form a message for our global generation: We have grown lazy. We have become the land of lotus eaters, and we dream that we have not.
Not to worry...I'm not a radical nut who's preaching THE END OF THE WORLD. Heck, I'm not even going to advocate selling everything you have, leaving it in my tender care--I'd take care of it; you can trust me--climbing some mountaintop to wait for the Mother Ship or the Messiah (He's not there yet) or even buying out the local stores for food and water to keep you through the DARKNESS AHEAD. (Shouldn't someone have a monster playing a dirge at a huge organ here?)
I'll join you in the deep end, and it's getting very deep indeed.
Politics, religion, and television have occupied my mind a lot, along with "great minds" discussing the "ethics of blogging" at the January Harvard conference, "Blogging, Journalism & Credibility." They have much in common. (For the link, check with Jessica Mintz at the Wall Street Journal. The one I had doesn't seem to work anymore, but here it is: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu.webcred/.)
Experiences--the problems or lack thereof concerning TV and, in a broader sense, all communication avenues; the old TV news adage, "what bleeds, leads;" Dr. James Dobson's concern over programming, which not only borders on censorship, but crosses the line; the overwhelming time taken up by ads on TV over actual content--lead me to ask: where is the general populace, not to mention journalists and our government's leaders, getting accurate information?
I got a Master's in Journalism/Mass Communication when I was 36. I wondered why my fellow students, all much younger than I, couldn't quite grasp the concept of "objective reporting" and of journalists being the "watchdog" for the people.
I didn't understand how they could read The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and come away with the singular idea that it protected only freedom of the press and of speech.
The answer finally dawned on me when I was having coffee in the Union with a few students: they chose to be journalists to "change the world" and to "teach" people what they "needed" to know.
Well, that does explain a lot, doesn't it? It seems that the leaders in our government now believe the same thing.
I subscribe to a polling station called "The Polling Station" http://pheedo.com/pollingstation/, and on Jan. 25, 2005, Jack Dinkmeyer commented regarding a poll testing people's actual knowledge of who was involved and what happened on 9/11. The results of the poll were all over the place, meaning no one knew much about anything. Dinkmeyer attributed this to what he deemed "The Tolstoy Syndrome." He then quoted (I'm sorry I don't know the direct source) from Leo Tolstoy:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
Experience and observation has taught me that this statement is a truism: The one thing most people cannot abide is admitting that they are wrong about something they have long held to be true, factual or not.
TV, advertising, communication media in general pander to this dictum in most instances--first telling the "masses" what they "should think," backing it up with so-called "facts," and tying it all up into a well-produced, well-written, well-spoken, well-designed package. The result? Few, if any, bother to question the validity of what is being stated, seen, read--what, in short, fills the spoon with which they are fed.
Well, I am not one of them, I'm saddened to say. Why saddened? Because my belief in the leaders of my country, the Republican Party, and our President seems to have been delusional.
I honestly believed I would never hear Republicans supporting actual expansion of federal governmental power to the detriment of their constituents, from whom they derive their power. (I believe they've forgotten that part, along with large chunks of our Constitution.)
To hear Tom DeLay, a professing Christian--"professing" is the operative word here; see my blog on "People Who Give Christianity a Bad Name"--ranting about "activist judges," the unimportance of our judicial system and those who sit as judges, and to find out this man is accused of gross impropriety and misuse of federal funds, whose own party fights to drown the din of protests against his and others' actions of late more than saddens me, it sickens me.
I was wrong. So I'm taking action, as are many of my friends and family, and changing registration from Republican to Independent. I will not associate my name with a party of hypocrites, especially one espousing "Christian values" while making a mockery of the phrase. I know there are many in the Republican Party who are not hypocrites, but staying within it at this time is not a good thing, nor will it change the others. Read Tolstoy's remark above.
Neither is it a time to keep silent. If your voice is not heard now, with all the talk about censorship, creating standards of "decency," and doing away with the time-honored practice of filibuster in the Senate, soon you may be unable to speak at all.
But beware when you speak; there are consequences:
"If you want to say what you think, you shouldn't have the notion that it's not going to cost anything at all, because that would get you into surrealism very quickly. If the notion is that when you say something you want to make a slight change of the given, then you should expect the given will push back one way or the other." --Norman Mailer in "Norman Mailer, A Literary Lion Roars" by Carloyn T. Hughes, an interview published online in a 2005 issue of Poets & Writers Magazine http://www.pw.org/mag/hughes.htm/.
Communication as it once whas thought of--the free exchange and dissemination of ideas for debate and the discovery of the truth of a matter or of a relationship or of a belief--has ceased to exist except in emails, the rare personal note, even rarer letter or phone call, and in this new world of blogs--even there you must choose with care.
What are we being taught? Greed is good; mass consumption of goods is better; all "legal" drugs are good, except when they're not, so call your doctor and ask them what the drug we're advertising is for. Truth in advertising is an "all's fair in love and war" concept, which means I can lie to you as long as I'm not caught, and by that time, you've probably been "branded."
Great literature, performances, and stories are not worth watching unless interrupted for "breaks"--ad people run ads during this time, while most people run for food or take bathroom breaks.
We're taught that short attention spans are better. In fact everything short is better, with a couple of exceptions.... (What was Kevin Costner thinking making a movie that lasted more than 120 minutes? And thank God we didn't have to see all three books of the "Lord of the Rings" in the same year! It was hard enough sitting through one that overreached the 120 minute mark! And, now, good grief! "Harry Potter" over seven years!)
TV schedules are more important than just about anything else in a newspaper. The rest of our time should be spent working, shopping, and getting groceries so we can watch.
Thirty-minute TV shows equal-22 minute stories, if you're lucky. The ratio of showtime to adtime decreases as the total length of the "story" increases.
It's simpler to stay at home and watch TV than to go out; it's simpler to rent DVDs (guilty), skip the commercials, and stay at home. It's simpler to buy fast food or "prepackaged meals" than to cook. (Heaven forbid we would have to sit in the dining room and talk while the TV beckons. Family time? Isn't that watching TV together?)
And please...don't read the book if the movie version is out.
So I'm taking my stand: I'm going to call those who call themselves "Christians" to account and to act like it or be exposed for the "wolves in sheeps' clothing" they are; I'm going to buy books and read them; I'm going to read a lot of newspapers and cram all the news I can get into my head; I'm only going to watch TV if it's really good stuff (that will cut my watching time down considerably); I'm going to say exactly what I think without fear; I'm going to write my leaders and tell them what I think, and I'm going to yell what I know is True from the mountaintops, if need be, realizing there will be consequences:
We have grown lazy. We have become the land of lotus eaters, and we dream that we have not.
Per events on 9/11: I was there. I know firsthand what happened. I worked eight blocks from the WTC, and was on the last train to get safelty into and out of the WTC sttion. I was walking to work when the first explosion happened. The debris I breathed in that day and for months after badly damaged my immune system. That is why I am sick and in Indianapolis with my family today, not living in NYC as I want to. If anybody seems confused about the events of that day, ask the survivors. Sometimes we can talk about it, sometimes not.
Posted by: Bowietrek | April 29, 2005 at 01:08 PM