The Culture of Fear and Hate

When I wrote my blog post, "Who owns the media?", my intention was to lay a foundation on which, I had hoped, people could begin to critically think.   My intention of the blog post was to illustrate how we, here in the US, have what can only be seen as a fairly tight knit techno-oligarchy of media.  The implications of such the existence of a thing should give us immediate and direct pause for consideration of the possibility that the power that these 6 corporations wield over public opinion, ideologies, and the spread of information is astronomical.

All too often when I have brought this subject up, the most frequent response is that I am simply targeting Fox news.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  News Corporation is probably the most open about what they are doing with the American public.  Unlike other media corporations, Fox will very clearly state their opinions regardless of how extreme they may be.  Other media sources are sneakier about their activities, relying on what I would say is a subtle implantation of ideas.  CNN may not say something so direct as "The Tea Party is nothing but a bunch of racist secessionists" but, by reporting on the existence of actual racist Tea Party members, they were propagating the idea within the reader that the Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of racists.  

When I took a course in persuasive writing, it wasn't the direct statement that was encouraged but instead, what was cited by the professor for this course was deliberately leading the reader of the piece, through implantation of thoughts, to seemingly develop the desired opinion by the end of the piece.  This falls under what the other news corporations generally do with their readers and viewers, engaging in what is a subtle reinforcement of opinion.  Fox, itself, also engages in a persuasive writing technique.  The first example I can think of that highlights what Fox does is actually what President Obama did himself in his acceptance speech on the night of his election.  Nothing is so powerful as repetition of statement--"yes, we can".   The greater the frequency of repetition in specific phrases causes the reader or listener to essentially affiliate themselves with the statement.  What's even more interesting about this kind of persuasive methodology is that the reader may actually forget the actual source of the statement as it becomes embedded.  The reader may attribute the opinion as their own without even realizing it.  Time and time again, I see evidence of source amnesia among my friends and among total strangers who are commenting in response to various things on the internet.

I find it incredibly strange that people don't note this nearly word for word repetition and I think I comprehend the reason why.  As viewers and readers, we naturally gravitate to those who are expressing opinions that complement our own.  In the case of source amnesia and repetition, the more like minded individuals state those words, the more it confirms the statement within ourselves.  One of the frequently repeated statements that I have seen time and time again has been the remark, "Get a job" in response to Occupy.  The level to which this particular statement has been used is prolific and every time that it's used, it creates what is called a confirmation bias.  The Occupy movement itself is unique in that the embedding of ideas and repetitions have been nearly unanimously against the Occupy movement.  On Fox, the protesters are equated to be "commie hippy rapists" and on CNN, their subtle implications have been that they are dirty and unfocused hippies.  Neither of these two corporations were forthcoming on information that contradicted these ideas. This is the point where I ask the reader to recall that there are only 6 corporations in control of the majority of our media.  Occupy is as much a threat to them as it is to the Koch Brothers or any other Occupy target.

The ramifications of the usage of persuasive writing techniques shouldn't be limited, however, to populist protests.   I remember when I was younger and first learning about journalism, I was in awe.  Here were these individuals with the important task of sharing information without bias to the public on which the public go ahead and draw their own conclusions on political matters.  To me, the awe inspiring aspect was the intention of a journalist to strip one's own political beliefs out of the equation when reporting.  Over the years, however, we have developed within our mainstream media something else entirely--political commentators.  There is nothing more endangering to our political system and the intended unbiased nature of news reporting than these political commentators such as the likes of Ed Schultz and Sean Hannity.   For listeners and viewers of a like mind that may affiliate themselves with a particular political party, these commentators set up a barrier between people.  A democrat listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Sean Hannity will be repelled just as much as a republican would be listening to the hate-filled rhetoric of Ed Schultz.  Instead of the free exchange of ideas that the press is supposed to be, it is nothing more than a beast that creates a culture of hate and fear with the American public.  It becomes not an issue of the American people as a whole but a separatist movement of us vs. them.   It is nothing more than propaganda but not in support of any specific government or war.  I would hazard that, in light of things--particularly the tight knit nature of the techno-oligarchy--that the intentions of this propaganda technique is to keep the American people divided.  From this base, we are spoon fed our talking points from which our politicians in Congress and our Presidential candidates feeds. 

Left vs. right, democrats vs. republicans.  Dirty commie hippies.  Racist Secessionist Treason Tea Party.  How many times have you, my reader, heard these kind of statements?  How many times have you been stunned by the culture of fear and hate that we live in?  Fear and hate have become such a divisive element within our country that if we make a statement about police brutality, we are immediately dubbed "cop haters".  If we question or support a specific political group, how many times have base assumptions about one's character and beliefs been leveled?  Labels do nothing beyond strip the humanity from others.  I have seen so much hate and encouragement of harm to police officers and protesters that it has forced me to wonder when did people forget that others are human, too?  In the words of Patrick Henry, "Let us trust God, and our better judgment to set us right hereafter. United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs."

United we stand, divided we fall. These words that we should all have embedded in us are the right words to be embedded.  Let us not let hateful rhetoric endanger our political system.  There is nothing more powerful than the sharing of ideas without fear, anger or hate.  The open sharing of ideas is what created this country.  Disagreement between ourselves is natural and from disagreement, consensus may arise but only if we are even allowed to talk to each other.  If we instead repeat oft heard phrases that we no longer recall the original source of that do nothing beyond alienate each other, then there is no discourse and no hope for consensus. 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.