In ‘The Influencing Machine’, Brooke Gladstone and Josh Neufeld pack a lot of discussion about the form and function of media in our society into a small number of pages.
Our reading so far ends with Gladstone presenting the media paradox in six simple words: “Objectivity is essential. Objectivity is impossible.”
I believe that the truth of an event exists, and can be known. Not everything is subject to interpretation. But this reading left me with a lot of questions. Here are some:
If we can trust no one source, then clearly we must seek out many sources (although many people do not have the insight, energy, or interest to do so – this is a separate but just as important issue). But if we must parse out the truth of something based on our own investigation -- if every individual must develop their own truth – then is there really such a thing as a universal truth? And if not, then what is the point of studying literature or history?
And how can we get nuanced information and different perspectives from many sources when so many of our sources are controlled by the same few companies?
If we get the media we want, or we get the media we deserve, who are ‘we’? Are we the over-stimulated, easily distracted masses of people who are so busy just getting by that they have neither the time nor the energy to care about events that affect them tangentially, if at all? If the majority of consumers see the news primarily as a source of entertainment and distraction, how does anyone make an informed decision?
What are your thoughts on phenomenon like The Goldilocks Number?
Gladstone lists seven biases: Commercial, Bad News, Status Quo, Access, Visual, Narrative (her favorite), and Fairness. Do you have a ‘favorite’? And if so, what is it?
The idea of truth is really interesting, and my feelings on truth are really difficult to put into words. I believe that there is an essential layer of objective truth to the universe- that right now I am sitting at a table, and typing on a laptop, and attempting to answer some very philosophical questions. The value in subjectivity comes when each person interprets objective things and events in their own way. The PROBLEM comes when objective things are taken to be subjective-- he said she said, different perspectives, bam you've got modern media. I think that by studying literature and history, the value comes in when we acknowledge these separations, and attempt to tease out the differences between the objective truth, the subjective portrayals of it, and the subjective responses to it. The important thing to remember is that there will always be a subjective element when we're talking about humans, and not try to believe or pretend in objective sources in addition to objective facts.
For your question on the media we want vs the media we deserve, I know I personally get burnt out. I see news clips when I open up my internet browser to check email, I see articles and (often strong) opinions shared down my Facebook and Twitter feeds, and see a fresh new batch if I glance at the morning paper before heading off to work. Personally, I then tend towards more escapist modes of entertainment. The sheer amount of news, especially the endlessly self-congratulatory tone of 24-hour cable news and radio talk show hosts, makes me feel exhausted with the whole deal. And I don't think I'm alone. However, I do think that we can appreciate the variety that comes with this amount of information, even if it's not as varied as it might be. Because we have so many options, we can sort of pick and choose our sources of information. If there was one source of news, it would monopolize news. The amount of competition we have plays these sources off of one another, forcing some kind of progress towards integrity. But overall, I have to agree with your phrasing that we get the media we want. With news coverage available in every shade of the rainbow across the political spectrum, it's really easy for people to cherry-pick the news that best supports their existing view. People love having their views validated. Why wouldn't they appreciate a news source that agrees with their point of view?
Oh, I definitely agree with you about feeling burnt out with media and the news reports.
I feel like the book talked a lot about printed news. I think that gossip magazines have become ridiculously gossip-laden. One magazine is telling us that Kim Kardashian is having a miscarriage, the other is calling her a "whale", and the last one says she's carrying the spawn of Satan. Does anyone actually read gossip magazines anymore and believe a word that's printed? My heart really does go out to those people who are vilified by the media. Is this something that they just simply have to get used to?
As for news/tv shows and other news outlets-I sometimes get a good chuckle out of the things that pass for news on 24-hour stations.
I actually really enjoyed this book about media and the media "machine". I found it interesting that Gladstone had chosen the graphic novel format to present the information. As I was reading the book, I realized that this is definitely something that many of my students would enjoy reading, and I plan to incorporate small sections, particularly the parts about types of bias into my Wiki (unit plan) for this class. I imagine that the writing, even though it was particularly witty, would be so much more dry and boring if she hadn't written it as a graphic novel.
Anyway, I read the book through once, and then read it again and took notes. I was appalled by the concept of the Goldilocks Number! I actually had to read this part three times to really understand that she was essentially saying that these people are presenting information that is not even verified or validated. If you think of the impact that these numbers have on society-especially because our culture is so closely linked with technology, these Goldilocks Numbers shape our understanding of the world at large. I wonder what impact technology has had on the media where people, who would blindly believe what they were told, now have the technology to find the information at their fingertips.
With regard to your universal truth question, despite her warning at the beginning of the book about objectivity, if each medium is biased in some way, then even her book explaining bias contains some form of bias. So, no, there can't be a universal truth.
I believe that that there is a universal truth that gets lost in the details. It is true for me to say that I am typing this response on my bed right now, or that yesterday it rained. The more details that are added to those statements, the further they may stray from the truth, because personal bias or a lack of memory. I think the difficulty is determining how many details can be added until something is no longer fully true.
Gladstone refers to the media as a mirror (a funhouse mirror to be exact) that reflects the viewer. This was a very troubling and eye-opening idea for me to think about. Often times I complain about the crap thats seen in the media, like Liz said about gossip magazines, or like Courtney about just simple being over stimulated with ads, news, videos, pictures, etc. I do feel that the media shapes the way society thinks, while also only publishing information that will sell. So these leaves me to wonder who is really in control and if it is just one big vicious cycle that has no true sender or receiver.
In the past few years, I have been one of those people that have been very disappointed with our media. Most of the stories are in "heavy rotation" and I think they offer very little information. Gladstone said that "We expect reporters to be ethical and informed. And awake. And damn it, honest and brave. We expect it. And yet we don't expect it." This concept rang true for me. I have high expectations for reporters. I want to believe that journalists are ethical and honest, but I don't. I am very suspicious of them and their intent.
Is anyone else suspicious of media? What has caused this suspicion? Can anything be done to restore faith?
I remember being disgusted by reporters back when I was in HS. I saw them as manipulative and intrusive and self-righteous. This was before the 24-hour cable news cycle and WAY before the internet and cell phones. I think my opinion was based not on any objective reality, but rather on how reporters were portrayed in the popular entertainment of the time. I've since become familiar with the names Woodward and Bernstein, Rather, Amanpour, Etc.
At the same time, I recognize names like Grace and Beck and become nauseous.
My most recent complaint about the news media is that print journalism seems to have given up entirely. I have no interest in talking heads on television. I stay away from the 24-hour 'news' programs and on-line 'reporters' because I feel they quite often talk to fill air time and transmit rumor, hearsay, and personal guesses as if they are fact. I still read the newspaper because (my theory is) the reporters have had time to allow a story to develop, to corroborate information, and to investigate leads. Five or so years ago, both the papers I subscribe to essentially dropped their international coverage, and my world shrank. At least I could still count on fairly comprehensive national and local news coverage.
Lately, however, it has gotten to the point that it seems as if print journalism has completely abdicated its responsibility. Now the articles fail to fill in the back-story, even if the story is only 12 hours old. It seems as if the editors have decided that their readers have already gotten most of the information from their competitors -- cable and internet. The people that I have always considered to be the most ethical of their profession have left me to fend for myself in the toxic wasteland of 'new media'.
If we get the media we want, I am certainly not 'WE'.
I have given lots of thought to this universal truth and how we come to our on conclusions of truth. But I feel that no matter what our truth is swayed by others facts, opinions, beliefs. I think the only we find the absolute truth is to have that truth untouched so it may not be swayed but this is not possible. We are influenced/persuaded by the things around us whether we realize it or not. I think this point ties into how we obtain different perspectives if they come from the same avenues. I do not know if we really do or if we hear or see those perspectives differently based on things out of our control. Things such as the credibility of the source, the way the source is delivered or even the person delivering the source. I truly would love to have some statistic on how much outside factors affect the truth and their believability. Visual bias in our media I believe is HUGE. We are drawn to pictures and things that stand out even if we know they are not true. Why is that? I can admit I am guilty of this. I agree we get the media that we create.
In ‘The Influencing Machine’, Brooke Gladstone and Josh Neufeld pack a lot of discussion about the form and function of media in our society into a small number of pages.
ReplyDeleteOur reading so far ends with Gladstone presenting the media paradox in six simple words: “Objectivity is essential. Objectivity is impossible.”
I believe that the truth of an event exists, and can be known. Not everything is subject to interpretation. But this reading left me with a lot of questions. Here are some:
If we can trust no one source, then clearly we must seek out many sources (although many people do not have the insight, energy, or interest to do so – this is a separate but just as important issue). But if we must parse out the truth of something based on our own investigation -- if every individual must develop their own truth – then is there really such a thing as a universal truth? And if not, then what is the point of studying literature or history?
And how can we get nuanced information and different perspectives from many sources when so many of our sources are controlled by the same few companies?
If we get the media we want, or we get the media we deserve, who are ‘we’? Are we the over-stimulated, easily distracted masses of people who are so busy just getting by that they have neither the time nor the energy to care about events that affect them tangentially, if at all? If the majority of consumers see the news primarily as a source of entertainment and distraction, how does anyone make an informed decision?
What are your thoughts on phenomenon like The Goldilocks Number?
Gladstone lists seven biases: Commercial, Bad News, Status Quo, Access, Visual, Narrative (her favorite), and Fairness. Do you have a ‘favorite’? And if so, what is it?
The idea of truth is really interesting, and my feelings on truth are really difficult to put into words. I believe that there is an essential layer of objective truth to the universe- that right now I am sitting at a table, and typing on a laptop, and attempting to answer some very philosophical questions. The value in subjectivity comes when each person interprets objective things and events in their own way. The PROBLEM comes when objective things are taken to be subjective-- he said she said, different perspectives, bam you've got modern media. I think that by studying literature and history, the value comes in when we acknowledge these separations, and attempt to tease out the differences between the objective truth, the subjective portrayals of it, and the subjective responses to it. The important thing to remember is that there will always be a subjective element when we're talking about humans, and not try to believe or pretend in objective sources in addition to objective facts.
ReplyDeleteFor your question on the media we want vs the media we deserve, I know I personally get burnt out. I see news clips when I open up my internet browser to check email, I see articles and (often strong) opinions shared down my Facebook and Twitter feeds, and see a fresh new batch if I glance at the morning paper before heading off to work. Personally, I then tend towards more escapist modes of entertainment. The sheer amount of news, especially the endlessly self-congratulatory tone of 24-hour cable news and radio talk show hosts, makes me feel exhausted with the whole deal. And I don't think I'm alone. However, I do think that we can appreciate the variety that comes with this amount of information, even if it's not as varied as it might be. Because we have so many options, we can sort of pick and choose our sources of information. If there was one source of news, it would monopolize news. The amount of competition we have plays these sources off of one another, forcing some kind of progress towards integrity. But overall, I have to agree with your phrasing that we get the media we want. With news coverage available in every shade of the rainbow across the political spectrum, it's really easy for people to cherry-pick the news that best supports their existing view. People love having their views validated. Why wouldn't they appreciate a news source that agrees with their point of view?
Oh, I definitely agree with you about feeling burnt out with media and the news reports.
DeleteI feel like the book talked a lot about printed news. I think that gossip magazines have become ridiculously gossip-laden. One magazine is telling us that Kim Kardashian is having a miscarriage, the other is calling her a "whale", and the last one says she's carrying the spawn of Satan. Does anyone actually read gossip magazines anymore and believe a word that's printed? My heart really does go out to those people who are vilified by the media. Is this something that they just simply have to get used to?
As for news/tv shows and other news outlets-I sometimes get a good chuckle out of the things that pass for news on 24-hour stations.
As for
I actually really enjoyed this book about media and the media "machine". I found it interesting that Gladstone had chosen the graphic novel format to present the information. As I was reading the book, I realized that this is definitely something that many of my students would enjoy reading, and I plan to incorporate small sections, particularly the parts about types of bias into my Wiki (unit plan) for this class. I imagine that the writing, even though it was particularly witty, would be so much more dry and boring if she hadn't written it as a graphic novel.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I read the book through once, and then read it again and took notes. I was appalled by the concept of the Goldilocks Number! I actually had to read this part three times to really understand that she was essentially saying that these people are presenting information that is not even verified or validated. If you think of the impact that these numbers have on society-especially because our culture is so closely linked with technology, these Goldilocks Numbers shape our understanding of the world at large. I wonder what impact technology has had on the media where people, who would blindly believe what they were told, now have the technology to find the information at their fingertips.
With regard to your universal truth question, despite her warning at the beginning of the book about objectivity, if each medium is biased in some way, then even her book explaining bias contains some form of bias. So, no, there can't be a universal truth.
I believe that that there is a universal truth that gets lost in the details. It is true for me to say that I am typing this response on my bed right now, or that yesterday it rained. The more details that are added to those statements, the further they may stray from the truth, because personal bias or a lack of memory. I think the difficulty is determining how many details can be added until something is no longer fully true.
ReplyDeleteGladstone refers to the media as a mirror (a funhouse mirror to be exact) that reflects the viewer. This was a very troubling and eye-opening idea for me to think about. Often times I complain about the crap thats seen in the media, like Liz said about gossip magazines, or like Courtney about just simple being over stimulated with ads, news, videos, pictures, etc. I do feel that the media shapes the way society thinks, while also only publishing information that will sell. So these leaves me to wonder who is really in control and if it is just one big vicious cycle that has no true sender or receiver.
In the past few years, I have been one of those people that have been very disappointed with our media. Most of the stories are in "heavy rotation" and I think they offer very little information. Gladstone said that "We expect reporters to be ethical and informed. And awake. And damn it, honest and brave. We expect it. And yet we don't expect it." This concept rang true for me. I have high expectations for reporters. I want to believe that journalists are ethical and honest, but I don't. I am very suspicious of them and their intent.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone else suspicious of media? What has caused this suspicion? Can anything be done to restore faith?
I remember being disgusted by reporters back when I was in HS. I saw them as manipulative and intrusive and self-righteous. This was before the 24-hour cable news cycle and WAY before the internet and cell phones. I think my opinion was based not on any objective reality, but rather on how reporters were portrayed in the popular entertainment of the time. I've since become familiar with the names Woodward and Bernstein, Rather, Amanpour, Etc.
DeleteAt the same time, I recognize names like Grace and Beck and become nauseous.
My most recent complaint about the news media is that print journalism seems to have given up entirely. I have no interest in talking heads on television. I stay away from the 24-hour 'news' programs and on-line 'reporters' because I feel they quite often talk to fill air time and transmit rumor, hearsay, and personal guesses as if they are fact. I still read the newspaper because (my theory is) the reporters have had time to allow a story to develop, to corroborate information, and to investigate leads. Five or so years ago, both the papers I subscribe to essentially dropped their international coverage, and my world shrank. At least I could still count on fairly comprehensive national and local news coverage.
Lately, however, it has gotten to the point that it seems as if print journalism has completely abdicated its responsibility. Now the articles fail to fill in the back-story, even if the story is only 12 hours old. It seems as if the editors have decided that their readers have already gotten most of the information from their competitors -- cable and internet. The people that I have always considered to be the most ethical of their profession have left me to fend for myself in the toxic wasteland of 'new media'.
If we get the media we want, I am certainly not 'WE'.
I have given lots of thought to this universal truth and how we come to our on conclusions of truth. But I feel that no matter what our truth is swayed by others facts, opinions, beliefs. I think the only we find the absolute truth is to have that truth untouched so it may not be swayed but this is not possible. We are influenced/persuaded by the things around us whether we realize it or not. I think this point ties into how we obtain different perspectives if they come from the same avenues. I do not know if we really do or if we hear or see those perspectives differently based on things out of our control. Things such as the credibility of the source, the way the source is delivered or even the person delivering the source. I truly would love to have some statistic on how much outside factors affect the truth and their believability.
ReplyDeleteVisual bias in our media I believe is HUGE. We are drawn to pictures and things that stand out even if we know they are not true. Why is that? I can admit I am guilty of this. I agree we get the media that we create.