[This blog is amid a series of postings that
aims to share with the reader a history of the nation – albeit highly summary
in nature – from the perspective of a dialectic struggle. That is the struggle between a cultural perspective
that emphasizes more communal and cooperative ideals of federalism and the
individualistic perspective of the natural rights construct.
The general argument this blog has made is that
federalism enjoyed the dominant cultural position in the US until World War II,
and after a short transition, the natural rights view has been dominant. Whether one perspective is dominant or the
other; whichever it is, that fact has a profound impact on the teaching of
civics in American classrooms.]
The last posting of this blog highlighted the
role television plays in promoting the natural rights’ view of reality,
especially political reality. Relying on
the work of Neil Postman
and his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death,[1]
Postman expresses little regard for TV and sees it as a counterproductive media
that furthers among the viewing public shallow perceptions regarding
social/political relations.
While this blogger alluded to a more
guarded agreement with Postman, a recent CNN broadcast convinced him
that he should further qualify his opinion regarding this critique of TV. Beginning in the 1960s, broadcast networks
did attempt to become more nuanced and reflective of real human interactions –
both with their dramas and comedies.
The list of more socially responsible
programming could be found and included such shows as All in the Family,
Law and Order, LA Law, and the like. This blogger also referred to cable
programming as broadcasting responsible attempts to depict reflective themes
that touch upon current social issues.
But overall, Postman makes a legitimate evaluation of that medium.
Since that time, another medium has fallen
on the American public – that of social media.
It has demonstrated a gross irresponsibility but with the profound
difference from TV in that it is not run by a handful of media executives but
is the product of millions of people posting all sorts of content – including
blogs.
And someone who threw himself into
investigating this world of social media is Andrew Marantz. This blog has commented on his work earlier,
but here, it presents his thoughts from the perspective of the historical role
social media seems to be filling regarding the dialectic struggle between
federalist thought and the natural rights view.
To begin, Marantz reveals his political
slant by claiming, not so controversially, that the US was created to serve the
interests of white men.
[2] Despite that, those white men – in sufficient
numbers – idealistically recognized that such a racist foundation was neither
right (on moral grounds) nor practical.
This
posting is not claiming they established a just environment, but that they put
in writing – in the US Constitution and other legal documents – the
provision of a legal requirement establishing and respecting equality. No, it did not guarantee in practice that the
nation would follow suit, but it did express this value as an espoused, legal
value. That element in its
constitutional formula put in place a standard, vis-à-vis the nation’s social,
political, and economic realms, that everyone was to have equal access to
justice.[3]
And
it is in these realms that social media is today playing a significant role. Given this backdrop, one can gauge the
effects that media is having. That is, through
handheld devices, there has been a steady diet of irresponsible messaging – and
that includes by and directed to young people.
The harm is of such magnitude that civics teachers should incorporate these
shenanigans as lesson topics to be highlighted and investigated by students.
For
example, that media is full of false “news” coverage – at times totally made up
– that casts, usually left-of-center proposals, as not only imprudent but right
down illegal, unpatriotic, or otherwise immoral. In addition, it often feels free to cast false
accusations at individuals its authors find “targetable” for some social or
political reasons.
Marantz
cites President John F. Kennedy as saying that people are disposed to accept
simple information that supports what they already believe but that upon
further thought, have proven to be sober enough to reconsider and proceed prudently. But what if there is what Marantz describes
as an accelerant?
That
is, what if the time between being initially exposed to such information and
the time people respond to it is drastically shortened? It leads to behaviors by people who would have
acted differently if they had had the time to reflect what those information
sources were spewing. The likelihood of
imprudent behavior, therefore, is highly magnified.
That
is the role social media is playing in many of the nation’s current debates
over its policy options. In effect,
social media is affecting the good sense of many people who then do not take the
time to soberly regard the information with which they are being bombarded.
How
does this newer technology cause this disruption? It provides an outlet – on a global scale – to
messaging in written and visual form without any or limited gatekeeping. Yes, this blog is an example, and its blogger
is thankful for the opportunity to continue what he did professionally as a
hobby that he enjoys. Hopefully, the
reader does not judge his efforts as irresponsible. But of course, across the board, through Facebook,
Twitter, YouTube, etc., responsibility has not characterized how too many
participants have used this opportunity.
Instead,
many – who unfortunately exhibit the necessary skills – have seen it as an
opportunity to make, irresponsibly, a buck through setups that allot to them advertising
funds that make their way into their pockets.
Nothing is wrong with finding ways to make some money if those ways do
not hurt or otherwise counter the common good.
That is how federalist values judge such behavior. But what too many are doing today, by any
meaningful standard, does hurt the common good.
That
is, if the aim is to disrupt the political or economic conditions for the sake
of being disruptive or to promote a political/economic agenda by dishonest
means or claims, the welfare of the American people is being negatively
affected. And with a bit of irony, the
work of such parties seemingly transpires without any aim or goal in sight. Disruption is sought for its own sake. In such cases, one can judge such activities,
at best, as indifferent to the common good but too often, it turns out, are in opposition
to it.
Has anyone been hurt? The first casualties have been various
industries. They include journalism,
publishing, advertising, and political consulting. And here, their efforts reflect a give and
take relationship in which such activity affects these industries; the industries
respond and that, through various creative means, plays into further
disruptions. Oftentimes, such back and
forth is unpredictable and will shortly be further described.
Initial targets also included what at another
time was called the silent majority. For
those too young to remember, that was the portion of the population that was/is
mostly the frustrated middle class of conservative, religious oriented (usually
evangelical) groups, and also some of those dispossessed workers who have lost
their jobs/income to low-income nations.
In short, it is those people who have been frustrated by the changes the
nation has seen since the 1980s.
And this new media, at least parts of
it, talk to those people on a continuous basis.
In addition, those who perpetrate its messaging have been successful in
utilizing a language to which these disgruntled people listen. It has incorporated entertaining messaging,
often with humor, as it issues misinformation that matches what that audience
wants to hear and see. Marantz comments
on that effect,
Then, swiftly, came the
unthinkable: smart, well-meaning people
unable to distinguish simple truth from viral misinformation; [in 2017] a
pop-culture punch line ascending to the presidency; neo-Nazis marching,
unmasked, through several American cities.
This wasn’t the kind of disruption anyone had envisioned. There had been a serious miscalculation.[4]
Whether
this is the product of miscalculations or the result of extensive planning, the
results are tangibly harmful to the comity of this polity. And in addition, technology provides even
more assistance to this mischief in its use of algorithms. That is, these messages become targeted to
those who want to hear them and avoid those who don’t.
For those readers who want to look further into this
development, this blogger can recommend Marantz’ book. He conveys a well-rounded view of the social
media world by describing how the various programming is produced and what motivates
their producers. He details their
politics both in terms of their programming and in their other modes of
political behaviors. It turns out that there
is a social media community of its producers and consumers, and the producers
have become expert in exploiting it, the media, and the community.
The
next posting will end this account of social media by commenting on examples of
political messaging by right-of-center advocates who are more formally
produced. The aim of this blogger is not
to be partisan, but to further describe how the age of natural rights dominance
has/is, through its advocates, discovered newer ways to manifest and strengthen
itself.
[1]
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to
Death: Public Discourse in the Age of
Show Business (New York, NY: Penguin
Books, 1986).
[2] Andrew Marantz, Anti-social: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the
Hijacking of the American Conversation (New York, NY: Penguin Random House, 2019).
[3] This standard took time to be established and that
time was marked with various conflicts including a civil war. Its full statement was not accomplished until
the ratifications of the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments to the Constitution.
[4] Ibid., 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment