Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Reading between the Lines
"I feel sorry for you Americans. You have a free media, so you've never learned to read between the lines."
http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2008/08/19/evan-osnos-on-the-angry-youth.aspx
For those of you who may not be familiar with the Imagethief—who always refers to himself in the third person—he is an American PR specialist who lives and travels widely in China. His blog is quite popular, and his observations of China range from the ironic to the wildly hilarious. If anyone is interested in picking up on life in China, his blog is well worth following. The important point here, though, is that when he talks about PR, he is speaking well within the field of his expertise.
The Imagethief quite correctly agrees that Tang Jie's observaton: “when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed” is incredibly important, but then, again correctly, the Imagethief points out that “brainwashed” is too strong a term.
The Imagethief then goes on to note that “t's the rare individual in most systems who asks himself, "Am I brainwashed?" Or even the slightly less charged, "How does media and propaganda influence me?"
This particular insight is not especially new. One could certainly observe it about a hundred years ago, co-arising with the development of PR itself, or, alternatively, one could trace it all the way back to Plato's Republic. What is unexplained, however, is why this should be true?
And here I would like to offer at least a tentative answer.
I remember, many years ago, when I was a student of Biblical history, I was struck by the fact that among my fellow students there were very few Christians. I wondered why. After all, the Christian religion is premised on a revealed historical truth—why wouldn’t any Christian want to know as much about that truth as possible? In fact, why would they actually avoid looking for it? Wouldn't that put them in an extremely disadvantageous position in any factual discussion concerning the Bible?
But then I realized that there was no need for them to search for the truth; they had already found it. The truth had already been told to them by their minister, and so their job was not to look for the truth, but to defend it. Why bother looking for the truth if you already know what it is? Thus, for religious believers, “truth” becomes an emotional reality, and has little, if anything, to do with the intellect.
The early Church Fathers seemed to have been well aware of this, and took advantage of it. “Don’t ask questions,” said Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon. “Don’t ask questions. Just believe.”
If we believe—sincerely believe—that we know the truth, how can we compromise? Any compromise with evil, taints us with evil. “Communication” becomes a shouting match, not an exchange. Two groups of people, each caught up in a dichotomy, each sincerely believing that the other is brainwashed, each of them composed of True Believers, is a war waiting to happen.
[As an aside, I should mention that, curiously, True Believers are always a minority. As Robert M. Pirsig correctly read between the lines many years ago [in Zen in the art of Motorcycle Maintenance]: you never see anyone running around screaming, “The sun will rise in the east! The sun will rise in the east!” People don't do that because everyone knows the sun will rise in the east. People do, however, run around and scream about other things, things that they are not sure of, but desperately want to believe. The world will end tomorrow ... won't it?]
The Imagethief continues his analysis with “I also believe that as Americans we sometimes fall into the trap of believing that operating in a country with a "free media" relieves us of the responsibility of having to think critically about the information we ingest. A PR person would be the first to say that it just ain't so.” The only quibble I have with the Imagethief on this point is his use of the word “sometimes.” I would suggest that “usually” would be a better word—doesn't PR depend on people absorbing information in an uncritical manner? It certainly seems to me that the American media's hype about WMD prior to the recent invasion of Iraq is unique in terms of scale, not methodology.
Of course, now that we know the Bush administration lied its way to a war, we won't get fooled by biased reporting and blatant emotional appeals again ... right?
The Imagethief: “Media criticism and analysis should be a mandatory high school class in the United States. It should be taught not as rarefied analysis, but as a practical class: understanding the author of a message, teasing out the agenda, and identifying how a point of view or the construction of content affects how we respond to it.”
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. The more we are inclined to believe, the less we are inclined to think. And the less we are inclined to think, the more we are susceptible to manipulation and influence. How often do these people have our own best interests at heart?
Recommended reading. I just finished this book a couple of days ago. It's top-notch:
http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101/
Two other excellent books:
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Propaganda-Everyday-Abuse-Persuasion/dp/0805074031/
http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062/
I'll get off my soap box shortly, but I'd like to include an example first. This little news item first appeared in the news about two and a half years ago, and I have spent literally hours puzzling over it. [I'm easily entertained]. But, for the life of me, I honestly can't figure it out. And I would certainly invite anyone to offer a reasonable explanation of what the Dalai Lama was thinking about here—and what was the reporter thinking?
http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185304,00.html
Now keep in mind that this story is more than two years old. But, if read quickly, I would guess that most people would come away with something like, “bla, bla, bla, Dalai Lama, bla, bla, Tibet, bla, bla, bla, rare animals, bla, bla,” and conclude that the Dalai Lama is attempting to preserve rare animal species in Tibet [who are probably becoming endangered because of poaching by the evil Communists]. The Dalai Lama's compassion extends even to animals.
But how can this can be true? If an animal is being hunted for its pelt, that means its pelt is valuable, right? Now if I destroy some of those valuable pelts, doesn't that make the remaining pelts even more valuable? And wouldn't that encourage even more hunting? How does this preserve anything?? Now, most people know enough about economics to be able to understand the basics of supply and demand. At any rate, I can understand it, and I assume that the Dalai Lama can understand it, too. So, why would he ask Tibetans to burn rare and valuable pelts?
I would also guess that if one read this article quickly, one would come away with a feeling of concern for the defenseless natural world which is suffering from the encroachment of climate change, and a host of other human evils—and would scarcely notice that “two Chinese and seven Tibetans were arrested for the burnings.” In other words, the way this article is written, our compassion is directed towards the animals—not toward the people who were arrested.
And why shouldn't they be arrested? Go ahead ... grab an old bear skin rug you happen to have laying around [or anything comparable—maybe an old TV or something]—take it down to the corner of First and Main, pour a little gasoline on it, toss in a match, and see if you get arrested or not. If you don't, you should be. That's one of the reasons we have police: to keep people from doing nutty things like that.
And then, after your arrest, just tell the police, “The Pope told me to do it.”
Would that make the Pope even a teensy-weensy bit responsible?
In light of the riots in Lhasa earlier this year, the conclusion of the article might seem a bit ominous: "These events are significant for us as they show the world and especially to China that Tibetans all over listen to the Dalai Lama and are willing to make sacrifices if he wishes so."
Or maybe it's only hype.
But don't ask questions.
Just believe.
Finally, for those of you who are interested in China, a couple freebies:
http://contexts.org/articles/summer-2008/rights-activism-in-china/
http://onemanbandwidth.com/wordpress/?p=407
Although I'm sure that some people might see this in a different light, I laughed myself silly over the youtube video in onemanbandwith.
And, on that cheerful little note, I should let you all know that my vacation is rapidly coming to an end, along with a good portion of my posts. I'll try to add to add to a discussion or two here and there, but I doubt that I'll be able to contribute more than a one-liner or two.
Good luck to everyone.
http://news.imagethief.com/blogs/china/archive/2008/08/19/evan-osnos-on-the-angry-youth.aspx
For those of you who may not be familiar with the Imagethief—who always refers to himself in the third person—he is an American PR specialist who lives and travels widely in China. His blog is quite popular, and his observations of China range from the ironic to the wildly hilarious. If anyone is interested in picking up on life in China, his blog is well worth following. The important point here, though, is that when he talks about PR, he is speaking well within the field of his expertise.
The Imagethief quite correctly agrees that Tang Jie's observaton: “when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed” is incredibly important, but then, again correctly, the Imagethief points out that “brainwashed” is too strong a term.
The Imagethief then goes on to note that “t's the rare individual in most systems who asks himself, "Am I brainwashed?" Or even the slightly less charged, "How does media and propaganda influence me?"
This particular insight is not especially new. One could certainly observe it about a hundred years ago, co-arising with the development of PR itself, or, alternatively, one could trace it all the way back to Plato's Republic. What is unexplained, however, is why this should be true?
And here I would like to offer at least a tentative answer.
I remember, many years ago, when I was a student of Biblical history, I was struck by the fact that among my fellow students there were very few Christians. I wondered why. After all, the Christian religion is premised on a revealed historical truth—why wouldn’t any Christian want to know as much about that truth as possible? In fact, why would they actually avoid looking for it? Wouldn't that put them in an extremely disadvantageous position in any factual discussion concerning the Bible?
But then I realized that there was no need for them to search for the truth; they had already found it. The truth had already been told to them by their minister, and so their job was not to look for the truth, but to defend it. Why bother looking for the truth if you already know what it is? Thus, for religious believers, “truth” becomes an emotional reality, and has little, if anything, to do with the intellect.
The early Church Fathers seemed to have been well aware of this, and took advantage of it. “Don’t ask questions,” said Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon. “Don’t ask questions. Just believe.”
If we believe—sincerely believe—that we know the truth, how can we compromise? Any compromise with evil, taints us with evil. “Communication” becomes a shouting match, not an exchange. Two groups of people, each caught up in a dichotomy, each sincerely believing that the other is brainwashed, each of them composed of True Believers, is a war waiting to happen.
[As an aside, I should mention that, curiously, True Believers are always a minority. As Robert M. Pirsig correctly read between the lines many years ago [in Zen in the art of Motorcycle Maintenance]: you never see anyone running around screaming, “The sun will rise in the east! The sun will rise in the east!” People don't do that because everyone knows the sun will rise in the east. People do, however, run around and scream about other things, things that they are not sure of, but desperately want to believe. The world will end tomorrow ... won't it?]
The Imagethief continues his analysis with “I also believe that as Americans we sometimes fall into the trap of believing that operating in a country with a "free media" relieves us of the responsibility of having to think critically about the information we ingest. A PR person would be the first to say that it just ain't so.” The only quibble I have with the Imagethief on this point is his use of the word “sometimes.” I would suggest that “usually” would be a better word—doesn't PR depend on people absorbing information in an uncritical manner? It certainly seems to me that the American media's hype about WMD prior to the recent invasion of Iraq is unique in terms of scale, not methodology.
Of course, now that we know the Bush administration lied its way to a war, we won't get fooled by biased reporting and blatant emotional appeals again ... right?
The Imagethief: “Media criticism and analysis should be a mandatory high school class in the United States. It should be taught not as rarefied analysis, but as a practical class: understanding the author of a message, teasing out the agenda, and identifying how a point of view or the construction of content affects how we respond to it.”
This, I think, is the crux of the matter. The more we are inclined to believe, the less we are inclined to think. And the less we are inclined to think, the more we are susceptible to manipulation and influence. How often do these people have our own best interests at heart?
Recommended reading. I just finished this book a couple of days ago. It's top-notch:
http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/0470050101/
Two other excellent books:
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Propaganda-Everyday-Abuse-Persuasion/dp/0805074031/
http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062/
I'll get off my soap box shortly, but I'd like to include an example first. This little news item first appeared in the news about two and a half years ago, and I have spent literally hours puzzling over it. [I'm easily entertained]. But, for the life of me, I honestly can't figure it out. And I would certainly invite anyone to offer a reasonable explanation of what the Dalai Lama was thinking about here—and what was the reporter thinking?
http://origin.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185304,00.html
Now keep in mind that this story is more than two years old. But, if read quickly, I would guess that most people would come away with something like, “bla, bla, bla, Dalai Lama, bla, bla, Tibet, bla, bla, bla, rare animals, bla, bla,” and conclude that the Dalai Lama is attempting to preserve rare animal species in Tibet [who are probably becoming endangered because of poaching by the evil Communists]. The Dalai Lama's compassion extends even to animals.
But how can this can be true? If an animal is being hunted for its pelt, that means its pelt is valuable, right? Now if I destroy some of those valuable pelts, doesn't that make the remaining pelts even more valuable? And wouldn't that encourage even more hunting? How does this preserve anything?? Now, most people know enough about economics to be able to understand the basics of supply and demand. At any rate, I can understand it, and I assume that the Dalai Lama can understand it, too. So, why would he ask Tibetans to burn rare and valuable pelts?
I would also guess that if one read this article quickly, one would come away with a feeling of concern for the defenseless natural world which is suffering from the encroachment of climate change, and a host of other human evils—and would scarcely notice that “two Chinese and seven Tibetans were arrested for the burnings.” In other words, the way this article is written, our compassion is directed towards the animals—not toward the people who were arrested.
And why shouldn't they be arrested? Go ahead ... grab an old bear skin rug you happen to have laying around [or anything comparable—maybe an old TV or something]—take it down to the corner of First and Main, pour a little gasoline on it, toss in a match, and see if you get arrested or not. If you don't, you should be. That's one of the reasons we have police: to keep people from doing nutty things like that.
And then, after your arrest, just tell the police, “The Pope told me to do it.”
Would that make the Pope even a teensy-weensy bit responsible?
In light of the riots in Lhasa earlier this year, the conclusion of the article might seem a bit ominous: "These events are significant for us as they show the world and especially to China that Tibetans all over listen to the Dalai Lama and are willing to make sacrifices if he wishes so."
Or maybe it's only hype.
But don't ask questions.
Just believe.
Finally, for those of you who are interested in China, a couple freebies:
http://contexts.org/articles/summer-2008/rights-activism-in-china/
http://onemanbandwidth.com/wordpress/?p=407
Although I'm sure that some people might see this in a different light, I laughed myself silly over the youtube video in onemanbandwith.
And, on that cheerful little note, I should let you all know that my vacation is rapidly coming to an end, along with a good portion of my posts. I'll try to add to add to a discussion or two here and there, but I doubt that I'll be able to contribute more than a one-liner or two.
Good luck to everyone.
0