TED Conversations

Mitch SMith


This conversation is closed.

Media and the divide of harm

That which goes between us is our media.

Colin Stokes asks us: Are we served by our media? He asks us: Are the movies we watch skewing the functions of our roles?

Here is Anne Summers aproaching the question from a broader outlook, but a narrower focus of intention:

But can we draw back further and discern broader implications?

If this is all true and that which is between us "media" is skewd from our benefit - what is the gap? What is it we are missing? We percieve harm, but what exactly is this harm?

I will lay down 2 ways to approach these questions:

1. Our world views consist of personal experience, and the report of the experience of others. That which we accept in report is assumption - untested, and yet we accept it as if seen by our own eyes. Here is one gap - can we truly separate our own experience from false artifacts in our media? If we can - are we training ourselves and our children to make thesse distinctions?

2. The deficit between Broadcast and Transactional media. In all broadcast media, there is only one active participant - the broadcaster. The reciever is entirely passive - In theatre we call this the "suspension of disbelief" - the material of the broadcast is taken as reality, and yet it is rarely tested. In transactional media, each participant mediates passivity by questioning - are we losing the art of the question?

I argue that the underlying principle goes before modern forms such as movies and internet. I argue that the absurdity of our broadcast-propagandised diet has its seeds well into the past - that it arises from an far older harm which is perpetuated in our media.

I name that harm violence. And I place it squarely at the door of the alpha male - and his ultimate form: the psychopath.

Here is Sapolski revealing the violent patriarchal culture of baboons, and the alternative matriarchal culture of baboons:

Can we learn from this?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: Yes. I have seen some of this, and i will read it in detail.
      From the outset, I have some arguements with game theory.
      We have TFT(tit for tat) and FTFT(forgiving tit for tat).
      The basic structure is OK but only up to a point, I offer ATFT(adaptive tit-for-tat) as a more accurate description - the degree of forgiveness is contextual.
      The parent/adult/child thing also has its uses.
      However, have a look at this guy - there are significant caveats against using the PAC transactional matrix:
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: also - be very careful - science and acedemia are currently under attack by the churches. Much of the media reporting of scientific bias and corruption are cherry-picked examples aimed to destroying science and perpetuating the ultimate power of gross religions and rapacious companies.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.