[Markos101]

Let's talk about the media on this one. I've been thinking about the real effects the media can have on billions of people around the world, and asking myself some questions.

I can't BELIEVE how much influence the media has on so many people in terms of their opinions, purchasing habits, levels of emotional stress, and most importantly - THE WAY THEY SEE THE WORLD.

It is beyond belief that such few producers (and perhaps more worryingly, corporate media bosses) can have such influence over public opinion. I think they're called 'opinion makers' - and that's a very apt description.

The fact is, the media need to sell you products in order to make a profit. In order to do this, they must keep you watching their 'news' service in order to coax you into not leaving during the advertisement break.

To do this, the best way is to report stories of fear and crisis, often exagerrating using language and symbolism (words are very powerful symbols and can alter your perceptions of the same events). But worst of all, this; I just came away from watching a news broadcast, and have found my ability to think for myself really quite impeded. I've come away with some sort of feeling in my mind about the days events, for example riots and protest outside the house of parliament today regarding fox hunting. But then there's this fact; all I've done is sit in front of a box for 30 minutes. That's all I've done - and yet I feel my own perceptions have changed in some way.

How can such few media companies have such strong effect on people's perceptions of the world! In reality, I know nothing about events that have happened in the world today. I wasn't there. On top of that, before the 30s, no one had any TVs. You could leave your front door open without any fears of people stealing stuff.

Worryingly, it also allows politicians to get away with some of the most awful decisions and actions - all that matters is the way those events are reported on tv.

Even more worryingly, members of parliament and congress also watch TV news and are therefore also affected in the way they see the world by what the TV news broadcasts say. These people then go in, and make decisions which affect the whole country.

The number of times I have seriously seen 'stories' picked up on news channels - one does it, notice it keeps viewing figures up and then also covers it - and then suddenly MPs vote for a change in the law after being brainwashed by television news coverage.

People think they know what is going on in the world, but they don't. What they've seen is imagery on the screen combined with commentary biased by the media companies branded political or cultural leaniences.

And I mean brainwashed.

This is an extract from Joyce Nelson's The Perfect Machine:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The fact that TV is a source not actively or critically attended to was made dramatically evident in the late 1960s by an experiment that rocked the world of political and product advertising and forever changed the ways in which the television medium would be used. The results of the experiment still reverberate through the industry long after its somewhat primitive methods have been perfected.

"In November 1969, a researcher named Herbert Krugman, who later became manager of public-opinion research at General Electric headquarters in Connecticut, decided to try to discover what goes on physiologically in the brain of a person watching TV. He elicited the co-operation of a twenty-two-year-old secretary and taped a single electrode to the back of her head. The wire from this electrode connected to a Grass Model 7 Polygraph, which in turn interfaced with a Honeywell 7600 computer and a CAT 400B computer.

"Flicking on the TV, Krugman began monitoring the brain-waves of the subject What he found through repeated trials was that within about thirty seconds, the brain-waves switched from predominantly beta waves, indicating alert and conscious attention, to predominantly alpha waves, indicating an unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness. When Krugman's subject turned to reading through a magazine, beta waves reappeared, indicating that conscious and alert attentiveness had replaced the daydreaming state.

"What surprised Krugman, who had set out to test some McLuhanesque hypotheses about the nature of TV-viewing, was how rapidly the alpha-state emerged. Further research revealed that the brain's left hemisphere, which processes information logically and analytically, tunes out while the person is watching TV. This tuning-out allows the right hemisphere of the brain, which processes information emotionally and noncritically, to function unimpeded. 'It appears,' wrote Krugman in a report of his findings, 'that the mode of response to television is more or less constant and very different from the response to print. That is, the basic electrical response of the brain is clearly to the medium and not to content difference.... [Television is] a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure.'

"Soon, dozens of agencies were engaged in their own research into the television-brain phenomenon and its implications. The findings led to a complete overhaul in the theories, techniques, and practices that had structured the advertising industry and, to an extent, the entire television industry. The key phrase in Krugman's findings was that TV transmits 'information not thought about at the time of exposure.'" [p.p. 69-70]

"As Herbert Krugman noted in the research that transformed the industry, we do not consciously or rationally attend to the material resonating with our unconscious depths at the time of transmission. Later, however, when we encounter a store display, or a real-life situation like one in an ad, or a name on a ballot that conjures up our television experience of the candidate, a wealth of associations is triggered. Schwartz explains: 'The function of a display in the store is to recall the consumer's experience of the product in the commercial.... You don't ask for a product: The product asks for you! That is, a person's recall of a commercial is evoked by the product itself, visible on a shelf or island display, interacting with the stored data in his brain.' Just as in Julian Jaynes's ancient cultures, where the internally heard speech of the gods was prompted by props like the corpse of a chieftain or a statue, so, too, our internalized media echoes are triggered by products, props, or situations in the environment.

"As real-life experience is increasingly replaced by the mediated 'experience' of television-viewing, it becomes easy for politicians and market-researchers of all sorts to rely on a base of mediated mass experience that can be evoked by appropriate triggers. The TV 'world' becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: the mass mind takes shape, its participants acting according to media-derived impulses and believing them to be their own personal volition arising out of their own desires and needs. In such a situation, whoever controls the screen controls the future, the past, and the present." [p. 82, Joyce Nelson, THE PERFICT MACHINE; New Society Pub., 1992, 800-253-3605; ISBN 0-86571-235-2 ]

[Markos101]

Another important thing is this. Many people can get what's called 'cognitive distortions', whereby a negative event can be replayed in their minds over and over because of a habit they've developed.

The problem with this is that the subconscious, which is of great influence on your behaviour, does not distinguish between the actual event, and the imagery going through your mind.

The result is that, if something like September 11th - which happened only once, over the course of half a day - is replayed continuously on the television, people can be led to believe the event was much more prevalent by the fact that it is replayed over and over in order to keep you watching the screen.

I'm not saying September 11th wasn't bad - it was awful. But the fact is, it happened once. If I had been there and seen it, I would be shocked by it and I would have memories of it. But those memories probably even now wouldn't be as vivid.

And on top of that - deep down I actually think I know what happened on those streets of New York back 3 years ago - but I don't. I wasn't there.

All I've seen is stories about it - stories, similar to movies - edited to show the event in a certain way and commented upon by journalists delivering the brand of political and cultural leaniencies its brand is focussed upon.

I don't know what happened on September 11th - and what's more - why do I actually need to know?.

The number of times I've seen - on the TV - mass protests about some thing or other in central London outside parliament. And then I think of the fact that those people likely haven't really experieced what they're protesting about - they've just seen something about it on the TV.

Fox-hunting, for instance. Most anti-fox hunting activists have probably likely never even seen a fox hunt.

It's a collective mind-bending empire that can have an enormous effect on the cognitive abilities of human beings, just by the transmission from one studio.

It's scary.

Mark

[NevadaGhosts]

Hi Markos101.

Great posts. I totally agree with you. That is why I cancelled my cable tv. I was paying $45 a month to watch 20 minutes of stupid, brainwashing commercials during each hour of tv. And most of the shows on cable tv are garbage. What a waste. I am now paying $10 a month for commercial-free satellite radio and buy my favorite tv show series and movies on DVD. Much better! I guess many people are sheeple. Can't think for themselves. The ignorance of peak oil in the general population reflects that. If the tv doesn't tell them about peak oil, then it doesn't exist. Scary, huh?

[PhilBiker]

No sports fans or movie enthusiasts here huh?

[JR]

I heard a quote once. Can't remember who said it.


Television is chewing gum for the eyes.

[Matrim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')Television is] a communication medium that effortlessly transmits huge quantities of information not thought about at the time of exposure.'

[Markos101]

I'd go a bit further than that. I'd say television is a substitution of thinking and imagination, and that is why it is so addictive.

Usually, having stopped watching TV ever since I went to uni, I always tend to have some sort of line of thought going on in my mind, in words.

However, after watching TV, or sometimes even listening to music, but TV is the biggest culpret, I find myself thinking in an incoherent series of images or random sound segments.

I also find it highly inertial to get nyself back into my normal coherent mindchatter, which I firmly believe is the natural state of the human mind.

It further inhibits concentration, and stops me from thinking in terms of future-survival-planning and more in terms of images or associations in a very vague sort of sense - but nothing contructive comes out of it.

Perhaps this is the process of my brain finally sorting out what has gone into my mind, but if you're getting so much information at once, I'd say that's particularly difficult.

Also, if one sits down and calms the mind, an underlying natural anxiety (or rather consciousness) starts to occur, which is not necessarily particularly pleasant but is necessary for our conscious functioning, and TV seems to override or suppress this, replacing it with this nulled off tricle of one image after another in no sort of functional way.

I think this is the difference between the 'beta' state and 'alpha' state of the mind - normally you might obtain this in for instance hypnosis (where the subsconscious is a lot more easier to access I might point out) or in meditation.

So TV could even be a hypnotic way of implanting artificial needs for products, which explains Krugman's research.

Darkly, this also includes political and public issues reported on TV media, and a creation of a fake world delivered to you through the box. One that doesn't exist but has nevertheless been deliberately and diligently engineered for some particular motive.

And everyone's hooked on it because it's addictive and induces this trance-like mind-state and an easy avoidance of anxiety over certain issues.

Mark

[schajw]

Recently, my wife and I lived apart for about a month. During that month, I didn't turn on the TV once. Guess what? Didn't miss it.

Re: sports - I'm an NFL football fan, so only now is it the time of year when I watch TV. And even then it's just a couple of hours a week (I really only watch the Denver Broncos and the playoffs). Then, in February, it's back to no TV until August or September.

- Jim

[twxabfn]

This is a very intriguing topic.

I'm not going to try to refute the study done by Krugman, but I will theorize that there are two distinct ways of watching TV - actively and passively.

When one watches passively, it doesn't particularly matter what's on, as long as something's on. The watcher of TV in this state is not watching to gain anything, s/he's watching simply for the sake of watching. It is in this state where the hypnotic suggestions of commercials are at their most powerful, and will have the most effect.

When one watches actively, the watcher turns on the TV for a specific reason - to watch a particular show, or to gain some specific piece of information. The active watcher pays attention and reacts as things are happening - commercials are less effective in this state, because the active mind sees the generic commercial and says "What the hell do I need that for?" (Active watchers are also the most likely to use "on demand" features or PVRs, in order to customize their choice of shows and maintain control over whether they see commercials or not.)

I feel that most people probably intend to watch actively, but if one watches for long periods of time and repeats the cycle day after day, they will tend to slip into a passive state. I also think that for some people to whom TV is actually an escape from the drudgery of daily life, watching TV in a passive state can actually be a (sub)conscious decision. It is for these people that TV can be a dangerous thing, and those who most need your wake-up call.

To sum up, I feel that TV in small doses, approached with a conscious decision to watch and react actively, can be relatively harmless.

Disclaimer: I have no scientific evidence whatsoever to back this up - it's just a pet theory of mine. I watch an average of one, maybe two hours of TV a day, mostly sports and my daily Simpsons fix; and thinking back over my purchasing record, the last commercial that I can remember having any effect on my buying decisions whatsoever was when I saw the commercial for the Civic Hybrid for the first time, said out loud "whoa, they make a hybrid Civic?", and bought one a few months later instead of the WRX I'd been planning on. Oh, and this was before I found out about Peak Oil.

Just another viewpoint to consider.

-twxabfn

[mgibbons19]

plus of course, if you want to be an intellectual, you have to dislike tv. Sometimes you can keep it in a closet on rollers. IT's best if you have a "shoot your tv bumper sticker too"

[Matrim]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o TV could even be a hypnotic way of implanting artificial needs for products, which explains Krugman's research

[Markos101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mgibbons19', 'p')lus of course, if you want to be an intellectual, you have to dislike tv. Sometimes you can keep it in a closet on rollers.

[gnm]

We don't own one - it was having a very obvious, addictive and negative effect on our little one so we scrapped it. The difference in my sons behaviour was amazing. He focuses better and we read books together all the time.

I think TV is crap - if ya want to watch movies thats fine but Ithink the impact on children really is bad. I mean how often do you go to a very adult violent film and somebody has a 3 year old in there - yikes! Adults can sort through the garbage or at least digest it - but don't expose a kid to that!

just my 2 cents..

-G

[Matrim]

P.S. Philbiker,
I love my hockey.........it's about the only thing I really watch anymore. Just watched Canada win the World(Canada)Cup. Unfortunately, there's a lockout in the NHL this year No season til probably Jan. maybe not at all. Not a good sign for my Edmonton Oilers, financially they prob won't last after this year

[TheSupplyGuy]

Generally, all I watch is NFL football(Panthers rule! lol) and occasional Simpsons episode. I very rarely watch CNN, preferring to get a collection of news from online articles by NYT, Charlotte Observer, Wall Street Journal, and of course, Matt's site. I feel I'm much better off without it also, but I do feel that you can be somewhat intellectual and watch TV.

[MonteQuest]

Your post reminds me of the Movie The Matrix. The defining dramatic moment in the film occurs just after Morpheus invites Neo to choose between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill promises “the truth, nothing more.” Neo takes the red pill and awakes to reality—something utterly different from anything Neo, or the audience, could have expected. What Neo had assumed to be reality turned out to be only a collective illusion, fabricated by the Matrix and fed to a population that is asleep, cocooned in grotesque embryonic pods. Ads today target people in their cocoons(homes) where they are hunkered down, holing up, and hiding out under the covers...

[Jakob]

Tv=Brainwashing machine.


If my side would win, I would try to ban the Television, because it's such a dangerous tool, if the wrong hands create the Tv-programs anything can happen.


Most people have no idea how powerful it is, many times a person can be neutral with an issue, then he/she watch the Tv, and see and hear the familiar face, -who is hired because of his/her talents to "reach people"- and instantly the viewer take side. Many people have those "hosts" as leaders in the psychological reality.

Facts and reason has very little to do with it, its body-facial movements and voice - from a authority figure.

I have no TV, I have not engaged in this brainwashing fashion for over a year that explains why our opinions can be so different.

By all mighty Odin I urge so badly for this crash, may Television be buried for good.

Hint: A good exercise would be to examine, public opinion before and after Television, don't shy away from the "sensitive" subjects, but rather focus on them extra hard. You will be amazed, oh and perhaps you will want to get your information directly from the non-tv era and not via the tv era.

[Jakob]

It is the TV, that explains why many nations on this earth aloud their women to be raped by men from other nations, and their young men to be killed by men from other nations. They have some reasons for this, some things they believe in their conscious minds –when they admit the situation, which in itself is rare- they believe that if they stop this evil a worse evil will happen, they think it will lead to persecution and extermination. Perhaps yes.

But this is not the lie, but the lie is: That it would be wrong to cleanse the world from those tribes who can’t improve their interests, who pushes them away with their dominant genes, and even attacks and destroys. The lie is that their ancestors, WITHOUT TELEVISION: WOULD WHIPE THOSE MARUDERS OF FROM THE SURFACE OF MOTHER EARTH FOR MUCH, MUCH LESS -AND THEY WOULD HAVE FELT GOOD ABOUT IT- JUST AS WE DID WITH THE AGGRESSIVE INDIANS.

Of course this lie, those ridiculous assumptions, this insane idea, is only accepted because of all the authority behind it, from all those slime balls in the mass media, who of course does not share the interests of their viewers, The Media Bosses belong to a compete ting warrior tribe with strong roots in a Asiatic tribe similar to Huns. (who ofcourse would have killed & enslaved us with traditional methods if they where able, as they did to a large extent in Russia, slaughtering the Romanovs and then millions of Ukrainians and many, many opposers).

CONGRATULATIONS IN HAVING YOUR ASSES SO BADLY SCREWED YOU DAMN IDIOTS.

TURN OF THE DAMN TELEVISION SO YOU ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY FIT&ABLE TO LIVE ACCORDING TO YOUR SELF INTERESTS. THAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST AND MOST FRIENDLIEST ADVICE THAT COULD EVER BE GIVEN, - IT'S FROM GOD.

[PhilBiker]

I think we're going way overboard here.

First of all the "study" referenced was based on one person's observations based on a sample set of one. Hardly statistically significant. Talk about junk science, this is off the friggin' map. Have other studies been done on this issue or are we trusting one "study" on one person from 1969?

Personally I don't have the time or inclination to watch "TV" beyond the occasional news program, Frontline and other great PBS programs, and sports. I really do like football and baseball and enjoy watching them on TV (or sleeping in front of the TV while they're on ).

I am a movie enthusiast and have a home theater set up in my house where I can watch movies. I enjoy watching movies this way. I just got an HDTV tuner so I can watch football and it will look better. I'm not going to apologize for it.

[mgibbons19]

TV can easily be overdone.

However, it is very easy for a group of people who think they have a corner on some unique information to line up and talk about "most people."

Think about how that sounds:

"Most people don't take their faith seriously, but when I am in church...."

"Most people don't think critically about the news they see on TV, but I...."

"Most people don't pay attention to their money, but I....."

There is just as much sheople mentality in trashing tv to be in with the cool smart kids as there is in anything else.

The only true 'most people' kind of statement is that 'most people' think they are special enough that they are different in whatever little thing they focus on.

It's just plain elitism.

Now where can I get that bumper sticker.