[Bas]

through the media corporations?

[FreakOil]

It's not the job of the media to teach a coherent worldview to their audience. These are confusing times, and I think even the smartest among us get stymied on certain issues. It's the audience's job to weigh all the facts and opinions and come to their own conclusions about things. There should definitely be more healthy debate in society.

The media are guilty of a few things, namely not paying heed to those who question infinite growth, not talking about overpopulation directly, though it is mentioned in some discussions about food and energy, and giving much to much weight to official spokespeople. As a result, people have no solid base upon which to begin thinking about the Big Picture.

Also, not all media are equal. I admire the BBC for producing that documentary "Century of the Self."

[FreedomSlave]

Bas,

It took you over 3500 posts, on PO.com, to raise this as an issue?

Are you bored?

Stoned?

What has transpired, in just the last seven years, to even cause you to question?

Wake up and smell the piss you've been wading through, man. Why do we come here for news?

Your question is axiomatic.

[BigTex]

The media corporations are in the entertainment business.

The news programs you see on tv are pure entertainment.

People who view entertainment as news are likely to be confused. If people do this en masse, they are likely to be confused en masse.

So yes, I think the American public is confused en masse because of the entertainment programs and print media that they interpret as news.

There may also be a small amount of LSD in some public water supplies, and that probably just aggravates the confusion.

[FreakOil]

There are a few other problems with the media.

There's the obvious: Media outlets have to make a profit, so they can't publish things that would scare away advertisers, at least not too often. Also, if people want to read about Britney Spears, that's what some media are going to publish.

There's the news cycle: Newspapers have to keep up with what's going on. If there's no new report from some scientific organization about global warming, than there's no news about global warming for the day. No one reads about the topic. Out of sight out mind. It takes a break from the public consciousness, and it seems less important ... until the next report comes out. There's a lack of consistency in our attitudes toward major problems because their importance waxes and wanes based on the news cycle.

There's the problem of what's considered news: Open up a paper or web site and have a look at the articles. You'll find that a lot of them, sometimes the majority, are about important people, usually politicians, saying something. "Health care is important," says Hillary. "We must stop racism," says black athlete. Most of this talk is irrelevent because it hardly ever amounts to action, and usually the people doing the talking have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.

There's not a lot we can do about the first problem. Media are not public services, and I don't think it would be wise to nationalize them and get more Pravda.com.

To address the second problem, media could put links to web sites near articles on a certain topic, directing their audience to places like PeakOil.com where they can learn more and discuss the topic in greater depth. The discussion at sites like this help foster more healthy debate and keep the problem in mind despite the news cycle. There's the problem of which websites to link to, of course.

To address the third problem, editors just have to go through the schedule everyday and get rid of all the useless "Governor Jackass Says Blah, Blah, Blah" trash.

[Kaj]

The media don't just represent the corporations. They are the corporations. Most of them have diversified assets into other industries. They all get their money from advertising. Their product is the audiences they manage to attract. So they are interested in the status quo.

Secondly, you need to look at the public relations industry, which is massive, and understudied. These are the people who write over half the news. They work primarily for other industries and governments. They write propaganda. That isn't hyperbole, its the word that the industry has used for decades until the term fell out of favour. The biggest of these public relations industries is owned by the defense department.

The business media are interested in cutting costs to stay competitive. So they often accept the heavily-processed information straight from the public relations press. All of this information has been processed to try to persuade a certain point.

This information doesn't have to be outright lies for it to be misleading. They just select certain truths. By ignoring the crucial truths, you can completely change the perspective of a situation.

In otherwords we are bombarded with complete bullshit all the time. The masses aren't confused though, because the commercial media is often so homogenous that the misrepresentations aren't usually contradicted.

[FreakOil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kaj', 'S')econdly, you need to look at the public relations industry, which is massive, and understudied. These are the people who write over half the news. They work primarily for other industries and governments. They write propaganda. That isn't hyperbole, its the word that the industry has used for decades until the term fell out of favour. The biggest of these public relations industries is owned by the defense department.

The business media are interested in cutting costs to stay competitive. So they often accept the heavily-processed information straight from the public relations press. All of this information has been processed to try to persuade a certain point.

This information doesn't have to be outright lies for it to be misleading. They just select certain truths. By ignoring the crucial truths, you can completely change the perspective of a situation.

[Kaj]

N.B. The only upside to this model is that the media have to attract audiences, so this can put pressures on them. Sometimes they use trash and entertainment to do this, but occasionally it means that they will adopt certain ideas if they know they are of concern to the public. Like environmentalism today, for instance.
It usually involves a lot of activism though. Early environmentalists struggled to get any attention at all, and had to make their case directly to the public before it got adopted into conventional wisdom.

[mos6507]

Here is public relations for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2XpCkbh6oA

[pedalling_faster]

why, what so EVER are you talking about ?

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

If my american relatives are any indication the answer would be no: they are just stupid and proud of it.

[Iaato]

Having a populace less and less well-educated, and not educated at all to the big picture and to energy basics makes them malleable. The high fossil fuel lifestyle creates an information storm with a ridiculous amount of spun-off information heat and waste which assaults your brain like radiation sickness. Having a mental model about the big picture issues creates something like a lead shield to allow you to absorb specific information to help you to refine your mental model, and to allow you to shed all the rest of the information waste.

As long as things are going along without a lot of systemic threat and change, then the populace muddles along, albeit with some psychic damage from the radiation from the information storm. But what I see now is the intensity of the information storm picking up, and people responding to the threat of serious change, but without a real mental model for what is even going on. Bas is right, this is an important issue. The populace will be confused, angry, and aware that they don't really understand any of the issues, except perhaps on an intuitive basis. It's going to make this country explosive.