TED Conversations

Mitch SMith

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz47O0phbCs

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYG0ZuTv5rs

Can we learn from this?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 12 2013: Would agree that any medium that wants to 'pitch' a certain message will ultimately be harmful because it does not offer a balanced picture. There is definately re-interpretation of data, to give one example there is a theory called 'Attachment Theory' which is a very popular way of looking at what happens in families. It is often quoted in the context of western culture 'nuclear' families. Many, many academic studies have taken this theory as 'the truth' rather than 'a particular person's take on the truth'. This 'theoretical lens' has been adapted and evolved, it has been challenged due to it's western culture bias. So what started as an idea has evolved and grown because it seemed to offer a relatively simple answer. Would suggest always a second-take at least on any process of interchange. Any communication is for a reason, that is why a decent education is so important - the time and space to interpret and challenge also so important. Teaching someone to read in the first place is so very, very important and so many children don't even get that opportunity in life.
    • thumb
      Feb 13 2013: The harm lies in ignoring the basic principle of advantage.
      One can hitch one's cart to a beneficial agenda, but wisdom is to be ready to un-hitch at a moment's notice.
      I observe that the truth is unknowable - instead we have various levels of "belief" (aka "perception"). All that can be done is to follow where truth seems to be going.
      The "gap" - the divide of harm seems to lay, not so much in the gap between perception and truth, as in how wide that gap is and how it came to be so wide.
      If one comes within proximity of truth, then things go well for that one.
      So this delivers 2 mindsets - the first is not afraid of others posessing proximity to truth and encourage it, the second is to treat the truth as a personal threat and attempt to turn others away from it.
      A great example of the latter mindset is Lord Monkton and other members of the Marshal institute - they caused great damage to the word "balance" which has been active as a principle of subversive bias ever since. In the media, the word "balance" has now become synonomous with political correctness and has induced a massive gap between knowledge and truth. This technique has been taken up by all the perverters of the world. Knowing this helps.
      • thumb
        Feb 13 2013: Mitch you are so insightful. I am sure you know of the sayings when someone offers a 'toast' either health, wealth and happiness or health, wealth and wisdom. It is part of the joy of getting older that we are more knowledgeable but I guess that comes at a price. Facing up to your own truths is a complex process. So pleased to see you being a guiding light to so many. In the meantime just look after yourself as well, get out in the sunshine if you can, it helps enormously.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.