Category: Media

When it comes to life, things clearly aren’t ‘fair’. It’s something children feel very strongly, until they acclimatise to the adult society they’re finding themselves within. Yet it’s something adults also rail against in light of social, criminal and economic realities or the various perils of mortal existence. There are so many ways life seems unfair, so many times we cry out for some form of justice.

I’m not sure what that is, our innate sense of wanting fair treatment. Maybe it’s simply that we ‘know’ we’re all humans, all alike, and treating anyone differently creates this cognitive discomfort at the ways of the world? But, in reality, our actions generally impact others: we put our own interests first in ways that might impede others’ chances.

This world isn’t fair and can’t offer true justice. Things cannot be undone; we can’t iron out consequences of choices that were made. We might look back and see what we wish had happened, we might be haunted by paths that cannot now be walked, we might hope to redress things, but all that’s after the fact.

In our minds we might see all that’s been lost and who’s to blame – that’s a version of reality which can be conjured up in the world of thought, with hindsight, but we cannot get that back. It’s perhaps one of the hardest things in life: to see the past most clearly, yet be powerless to change it.

The point of power always being in the present, justice is essentially this looking back and deciding what can be done to somehow ‘set things right’. Whether that’s some form of financial compensation, of punitively limiting a perpetrator’s future, or attempting to eradicate wrongdoers from society to protect others. We stand in the present and we try to alter the future to make up for the past.

So much of life seems to be this attempt to redress the balance, to create equality and freedom for all people. Which is such a beautiful thing, such a valuable social function. But it’s not easy to get right.

Life’s so imperfect: people are imperfect, often wounded works in progress; society likewise is an imperfect realisation of high ideals (see Notes One). We might try to guide people, limit opportunities for wounds to be inflicted, implement regulation to establish the conditions for humanity to safely flourish, but our ideas often seem similarly imperfect.

Battling against human nature could perhaps be given as a definition of society? Trying to find systems to contain our darkness while guiding us toward the light. It’s a fascinating topic, as explored in this Guardian article about the “desire for vengeance”: ideas of retribution, harking back to Greece in 500BC, apparently standing firmly at the roots of social, cultural, and personal development.

Our search for justice might be almost timeless, but it’s still interesting to consider its modern forms, its place within social realities, and how law or media might voice, frame and process our very human sentiments.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Living as an open wound
Note 1: Dealing with imperfection
Note 1: What if it all means something?
Note 1: What holds it all together
Note 1: Does anything exist in isolation?

Staying informed about things comes across as this important foundation for modern society: the sense of needing to keep abreast of current affairs, know what’s going on, and be able to evaluate it rightly which then informs our choices and actions as citizens, consumers, or simply adults within all the communities and systems shaping our lives.

It presumably arose alongside democracy and free markets? That if we’re to be placed in the position of exercising our own judgement in those arenas, then we need both to be adequately informed and have the capacity to judge wisely. If you’re going to give individuals freedom, they must be well educated and communicated with if they’re to fulfil those roles responsibly (see Notes One).

In the West, there’s this sense in which “power” was effectively placed in everybody’s hands – we were made the unit of decision-making. And that’s clearly a huge responsibility; especially when you view it in conjunction with the loosening and speeding up of all the systems we’re now living within (Notes Two)

Within all that there’s then this function of imparting information. Whether that’s social, economic, political, cultural, personal, commercial, or whatever else, there are all these individuals, organisations and entities clamouring for our attention (Notes Three). Given the advent of the internet, that’s much different from when people would return from a day’s work and tune in to a brief radio broadcast for the salient points.

Of course, back then there was maybe more trust in those in power and those reporting things. Having the more multifaceted insight offered by modern media can surely do wonders in terms of holding people accountable and challenging the courses we’re taking. But it’s undeniably also making things more overwhelming.

At times it’s almost like we’re riding the tail of this vast dragon of opinion, argument and reaction. Each event sparking off a turbulent chain of responses. Sometimes the voices speaking there might seek to soothe, reassure, engender calmness and reason; other times they might enflame, striking powerless fear or anger into our hearts; or maybe they’re making light, offering up sheer novelty for our amusement. It’s quite a volatile, unpredictable reality – never knowing what’ll be thrown at us each day.

In that light, at what point does the value of being informed get outweighed by the strain of being overwhelmed? How easily are we able to stand as responsible citizens or consumers if our minds and emotions are being torn to shreds by incessant updates? When do we start losing the capacity to judge or willingness to engage with voices seeking to undermine, convince or coerce as much as inform us about our choices?

Given how much media influences our democratic decisions, alongside the influence of advertising and culture over consumer or social behaviour, it’s far too important to play games with. Politics, social cohesion, mutual interest or respect, and the vast economic realities engulfing the world affect us all; not giving people what they need to navigate that responsibly seems risky.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Right to question and decide
Note 1: Freedom, what to lean on & who to believe
Note 1: Responsibility in shaping this reality
Note 2: The conversation of society
Note 2: Modern media and complex realities
Note 3: Media within democratic society
Note 3: What’s a reasonable response?
Note 3: Fear or coercion as motivators

As a counterpoint to this, Plato & “The Republic” explored ideas of what makes a healthy society from the perspective of a somewhat distant past.

In terms of how we’re living and all the problems currently facing individual societies as much as the global community we’re all existing within, the sense of what might be realistic, practical, empowering responses is a question affecting us personally as much as systemically. Charting that powerful and emotive set of reactions, values and ideals in order to hopefully lead to lasting improvement seems this incredibly complex task.

Because we all have our sense of what’s normal, right, and expected. Everything we see and hear is presumably run past our own set of judgements, filters, and ideas as to what’s acceptable or would be better. So many conversations seem to run along that track of expressing our own opinions on what’s going on around us, whether we’re watching TV, absorbing news, or commenting upon the lives of others.

We’re often actively taught to approach life that way: forming our response, lining up arguments, and presenting them somewhat definitively to others (see Note One). As thinking creatures we’re being encouraged to pass everything through the reasoning of our own mind, with all its personal, cultural, social, moral conditioning of experience and affirmation. We’re shaped by our world, then pass judgement on that basis.

Which seems to have the effect of making everything quite personal: we feel things as an affront to our very existence and all we’ve been taught to see as right; we might expect our finest efforts at reasoning to meet with immediate agreement, approval and change; we may battle on, hoping to win people over, with our sense of self and what matters effectively on the line.

The idea of how best to apply our mind, our ideals, our words and actions in order to bring about greater awareness and constructive action isn’t easy to resolve. Then there’s the tools we’re using, the ways of going about things that we’ve inherited from the past and repurposed for new ends; including the voice, role and responsibility of modern media and the wider cultural conversations that all sits within (Notes Two).

With thought, we might expect our reasoned responses to be universal – we might think them compelling, obvious and beyond doubt – but, in reality, everyone else’s views are likely to be as firmly held as our own (Notes Three). Logic might be fairly neutral, but how we apply it, the meaning we assign to links in the chain, and the overall picture we see emerging does seem capable of varying for some reason.

So, given all we can now be aware of and the relentless pace of updates and trends appearing on a global scale, filtering all that down into actionable conclusions capable of keeping up with the waves of novelty must be almost verging on the impossible. And not adding fuel to the fires through potentially unhelpful responses stands apart from that as a quite separate challenge.

Somehow, though, we have to navigate this and find ways to communicate about collective courses of action we’re all inclined to sustain.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Pick a side, any side
Note 2: Apparent difficult in finding a voice
Note 2: Desensitised to all we’re told?
Note 2: Concerns over how we’re living
Note 3: Is anything obvious to someone who doesn’t know?
Note 3: The philosopher stance
Note 3: Dealing with imperfection

Ideas of imperfection, change, and the pursuit of ideals were considered in a slightly different light in Dystopia as a powerful ideal.

Now we’re told so much, all the time, it seems likely we exist somewhere between being overwhelmed by or desensitised to it all. The idea of being able to correctly interpret, weigh up, and respond to everything we’re seeing and hearing seems almost impossible in a way.

Human attention – where it’s focussed, how much we have, and whether there’s any to spare – is presumably a finite resource; a limited and valuable commodity within personal life, business, and social or cultural conversations. And, if we don’t have unlimited capacity, then filling that up with pointless, unsettling things could be seen as a little troubling.

The risks of that may become most apparent when we look to the needs of citizenship: those areas of life where we’re called upon to understand things, see what’s happening, and contribute to our common direction. The ability to read and respond to reality must largely depend on holding a balanced perspective of all that’s going on and what matters most within it (see Notes One).

Which, stepping away from the weighty responsibilities of democracy, highlights the need for a thorough understanding of all life throws at us through its various channels. So much in life is truly important, and we often only get one chance to do the right thing; yet all those choices add up into patterns of behaviour that become a thing in themselves: social or economic forces with their own momentum and expectations (Note Two).

Within all that, the question of how we’re using our minds seems an obvious yet possibly overlooked one (Notes Three). Do we just ‘switch on’ the channel that is the human mind – the transmitter, receiver, flashlight, or some other metaphor – and attempt to process all that crosses its path? Is everything to be given the same weight, the same consideration, or can there be some filtering process of active discernment?

I would’ve thought there’s a risk we’d burn out, either in the processing or filtering stages: that we’d stop listening, resign ourselves to the meaninglessness or indecipherability of many messages and our seeming incapacity to even make a difference once we’d managed to reach some degree of certainty (Note Four).

In that light, what are we doing? Why is the ‘modern environment’ so full of relatively unimportant messages that seek to distract, coerce and redirect the human mind? And does it matter if we’re simply letting our thoughts be absorbed and caught up in some quite frivolous, unproductive and unintelligent ways of relating to reality? Given we ‘know’ that stakes are high, it’s a bit mysterious to me.

If, picking up the words of Huxley, “only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures”, then where does this leave us? Socially speaking, can we afford to buy into ways of communicating about life that risk undermining our capacity to form a reasoned, comprehensive sense of where we might be headed?

Notes and References:

“Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley, (Random House, London), 2004 (originally 1958).

Note 1: “Brave New World Revisited”
Note 1: Media within democratic society
Note 2: What if it all means something?
Note 3: What are we thinking?
Note 3: David Bohm, thoughts on life
Note 4: Right to question and decide

Building on the idea of how we might respond to life, there’s Responsibility in shaping this reality.

When it comes to how we talk about things, these days that often veers between anger, despair, indignation, attack, frivolity, or many other challenging responses. While that might be incredibly difficult to navigate, it’s presumably also a sign we’re trying to engage with complexity and find ways forward.

At times it seems this adds fuel to the fire, an overlay of possibly unhelpful reactions that create further problems and may often detract from what genuinely needs to be addressed (see Notes One). Everything can then begin to seem so contentious that we don’t risk saying anything at all, fearful of setting a foot wrong despite all our best intentions and however much we may try to foresee every conceivable side of things.

Language and conversation start to feel dangerous. We might choose to come out fighting, decide not to care, or retreat from it altogether. Because surely as soon as we speak we adopt a perspective, the words we choose and their underlying assumptions revealing more than we may be aware. And if our lives shape us, forming our ideas, then our understanding must necessarily tend to be limited and incomplete (Note Two).

The open communication we’re now able to have with the assistance of technology seems to be bringing with it the full weight of our histories and a considerable challenge to our ability to communicate (Notes Three). After all, there are no definitive rules in that realm. We might have our own sense of what we mean and how we intend it to be received, but does that carry? Our words may be taken in quite a different light.

The nuance of language; what we mean, say or imply; the unspoken context and nature of our personalities; how clear or indirect we may be; where our personal priorities lie; and ways we might inadvertently use communication to provoke responses – all this has a life of its own through the veil of tech, where so much is taken out of our hands and our immediate environment.

With the internet, conversations essentially become permanent and subject to interpretation. The relative safety of talking with friends, or at least those who care about you on some level, shifted to a vastly different forum. How best to communicate in that space is a fascinating and daunting reality.

In the post referenced on Mirrors, I spoke of how we seem to find meaning and understanding through our place in the world and our interactions with others. If we view communication as a way of ‘testing’ ideas, articulating our best attempt at grasping something, then a social process of feedback or adjustment can serve us well: opening our perspectives through this interpersonal journey of language.

The internet, being a public record and a very influential one, may not be the place for that kind of exploratory conversation. But if we cannot talk, express ourselves and change our views if we see we’re mistaken, then it seems we might be losing an essential human function.

Notes and References:

Note 1: Anger as a voice
Note 1: We may as well laugh
Note 2: Mirrors we offer one another
Note 3: Modern media and complex realities
Note 3: The web and the wider world
Note 3: Empathy in a world that happily destroys
Note 3: Things we can’t talk about

Life isn’t straightforward and maybe it never really has been, but surely modern life has a whole new layer of complexity: we’re aware of everything, or we can be. We no longer live simply within our own society and culture, but simultaneously within a global one and in the light of how our narrower interests impact others now and have done in the past.

Previously those impacts were relatively easy to cover up as people were spun a tale of national mythology; now we can hear things from almost any perspective and in any number of voices. Information isn’t as easily controlled as it once was; which is good in many ways but also pretty challenging (see Notes One).

How can the human mind rise to these challenges, find firmer ground on which to stand, and begin working together in this new way? Because it seems technology has ‘come of age’ in a sense: the initial enthusiasm and novelty has worn down into a more realistic and practical sense of both the opportunities and obstacles being presented to us.

And, while it clearly offers great advantages and capabilities, it’s also showing itself to be quite difficult to master (Note Two). Yet it is now shaping our lives and the lives of coming generations at this unprecedented speed. We’re aware children are experiencing the world in a fundamentally different way (and uncertain over the implications), but as adults we’re also often caught up in the flow of it all.

I mean, notions of knowledge and communication are shifting: do we need to know anything, or merely how to find out; is communicating a significant social responsibility or can we define it ourselves? The pace of life and information has likewise changed, as stories happen instantaneously and outlets compete with ever more dramatic ways to meet demand or capture revenue.

It’s all quite overwhelming; not only the volume of information, but the means by which it seeks to make itself known. Then there’s advertising, the eye-catching world of entertainment in its various forms, and the overlays of opinion or agenda. Questions around the ultimate value of all this and the human capacity to respond wisely to it seem fairly crucial at this point (Notes Three).

Because, to my mind, culture is where we seek to give life meaning; whether that’s through reflecting on current events, immersing ourselves in stories, or considering the things modern society has to offer. How much meaning is contained within what’s going on right now and how well it serves us, I’m not entirely sure (Note Four).

Life now is almost unavoidably complex. With all this knowledge at our fingertips, we now have to learn how best to work with it without simply being swept along or throwing our intelligent hands up in resignation or despair. It doesn’t seem a reality we can avoid though and, given how so much is operating as a marketplace, it seems the real choice within it all may lie in our response.

Notes and References:

Note 1: History as a process of changes
Note 1: Communicating divergent experiences
Note 1: How do we find a collective vision?
Note 2: The potential of technology
Note 3: “Brave New World Revisited”
Note 3: Media within democratic society
Note 4: Missing something with modern culture?

Then there’s Patience with the pace of change, which looked at technology and modern life.

Culture can be viewed as the ideas, meanings, practices, and stories we tell to tie life and therefore society together; this idea of cultivation, of tending what will come of it all. But, in these times, the cultural forms proliferating and feeding into society aren’t necessarily wise or constructive so much as commercially viable.

Notions around appearance, status, character, and human worth are seemingly being defined and shaped by industry; whether that’s entertainment, advertising, or other news and media outlets (see Notes One). In effect, popular culture seems to be ‘what sells’ rather than an intentional set of principles that might help sustain a healthy society.

In a way, of course, these activities are continuations of age-old traditions recast in the modern light: stories become films, campfires become screens, togetherness translates to global connectivity, and meaning to identity. Today’s forms are variations on what has ‘always’ happened, just with a technological and commercial overlay in many cases.

But is that the same? Does it serve the same function, or is the commodification of culture something different? Clearly, selling something makes it a transaction and a product, and market forces bring in elements of exclusivity and demand (whether real or fabricated).

The posts referenced before have questioned the implication of cultural life becoming business; our natural desires for belonging and worth transposed into consumption. We’re offered something – a product, an experience, plus the sense of identity packaged up with it – but it’s not freely given. There are natural costs of course, but also systemic ones in terms of storylines we’re accepting or supporting through our adherence to them (Notes Two).

On a personal and a social level we’re still weaving together meanings: culture still shapes our ideas around self, society, and others; still informs our attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and values in life. We might be more aware in how we craft our ‘self’ in relation to it, but how conscious are we of the overall picture being formed?

The coherence and deeper meaning of that picture concerns me at times, as does the commercial nature of what’s essentially a human endeavour: ideas around age, looks, gender, and background often seem far from ideal; and selling people things, saying that completes you, seems to undermine human worth for the sake of money.

But then these days everything’s a marketplace, and this is simply the one dealing in human meaning. That is what it is, and maybe our power in that system is the freedom to direct it as consumers: how we engage and what we create from it, the messages and meanings we affirm, the worldview that all serves to maintain.

Money’s a part of life, so ‘naturally’ people seek to make a business and a profit out of this essential human function. Their sense of constructive responsibility may be questionable at times (as with any business), but our more conscious participation in building a culture that sustains humanity throughout each lifetime and across the globe may be one way to go.

Notes and References:

Note 1: The value of art in society
Note 1: Intrinsic worth over social identity
Note 1: How many things are cycles (we could break)
Note 1: Is sustainable design an impossibility?
Note 1: Complicity and cultural attitudes
Note 1: Romance, love & the movies
Note 2: Missing something with modern culture?
Note 2: What are the true costs?

I’ve written a few times now on this subject (Media immediacy, Media and responsibility, Media within democratic society) as well as on the dynamics of money (Values and the economic), and here I want to look at how that intersects.

To dive right in, I’m surprised at times by the assertion that media is a business and exists for profit. Obviously it’s true, everything these days is a business; but part of me perhaps naïvely viewed it as a public service. Codes of ethical conduct do put it more in that position, but it seems revenue increasingly influences many aspects of media behaviour.

In trying to decide how much that matters, I came back to the ideas of Aldous Huxley and “Manufacturing Consent” discussed in the third media post above; both describing media as a sort of propaganda that sustains society. If a collective way of life is supported by information (whether strictly in our best interests or more to serve the system itself) then surely the function of the media truly does matter. Yet if we’re overrun by information, conflicting opinions, and blatant or subtle attempts at influence then this foundation begins to appear shaky.

Bringing things back to money, to me this raises questions of trust and authority. If someone has a financial interest in conveying information then that must affect the content we’re offered. Of course, we currently live in a profit-based world; but facts and ideas are very powerful, so their communication could be seen as an almost sacred responsibility given it informs the inner life and social reality of so many.

Modern life’s unusual in many ways. For one, we have access to so much information: it’s conceivable to become aware of all that’s going on in the world. Then there’s this proliferation of ideas and opinions available constantly through technology. We ‘can’ know everything and, as intelligent and social creatures, we want to; but that places us within a deluge of questionable information. Can we feasibly assimilate all that?

Things I’m talking about aren’t purely financial; more about a daunting reality of competing influences. But the pursuit of profit clearly seems to muddy some already turbulent waters. Are we receiving the neutral, impartial information we so need in order to make educated decisions in all areas of life? Or are we being subjected to more attempts to influence, attract and persuade? How do we decide who to trust for our knowledge? And are voices we listen to “free”?

I’m certainly not saying we shouldn’t listen to media; only that what’s contained there doesn’t exist purely to inform. And information matters: it shapes our ideas, attitudes, priorities, and decisions. Many industries count on that and put massive resources into it; some of which struggle to be heard, while others seem intent on causing confusion. As humans trying to see through the mist of irrelevant yet profitable distractions, it’s challenging to know what to ignore and where to focus; but that seems to be our situation.

In Media Immediacy and Media and responsibility, what emerged was an appreciation of the crucial functions of the media and also of the challenges it presents modern society. My main focus for the moment though is that we seem to have been living strangely for such a long time now that it’s started to feel normal. And, in this context, I’m mainly thinking of our collective conversation through media channels and influences at play there.

After writing the above posts, I looked into Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World Revisited” and Herman & Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent”; both books offering powerful perspectives on media, propaganda and democracy.

Huxley paints an interesting picture, especially given these ideas pre-date modern technology. Essentially the premise is that society requires common understanding, whether that’s to support a democratic system, a totalitarian one, or an economic one: we receive information and, in the light of that, make the best decisions we can. This bears with it the importance of what we receive and of our ability to make the most of it.

“As for the meaning of the facts, that of course depends upon the particular system of ideas in terms of which you choose to interpret them.” So does it matter which perspectives we choose to have amplified in our understanding of raw, complex realities? Huxley speaks of the neutrality of the media, in that it can be used for good or bad; but also highlights the intentions underlying any system of information and the challenge to our discernment of charting a path through it all.

In the face of the overwhelming volume, intensity and speed of modern information, I wonder at our ability to stand our ground and be sure enough of what it all means. It seems the very nature of that knowledge pushes us to simplify realities and ignore alternative views or concerns out of pure, functional necessity. Then there’s the question of commercial interests or other social distractions; all competing for our attention in a way that must surely over-stimulate and desensitise us, while masquerading as more important “information”.

These are themes Herman & Chomsky then pick up, speaking of how the media essentially serves societal interests and reaching interesting conclusions around the role of commercial concerns in weakening the public sphere of dialogue and information so essential to democracy. Seemingly, the media is not the neutral force it often purports to be and arguably needs to be.

If “the media” – whether in traditional news format, online outlets, social media, cultural influences, or the constant flow of marketing – is so important to the conversations we’re having around modern life; how can we cultivate discernment and get to grips with what’s really going on and what truly matters, given all the attempts to influence us in countless directions? Is it possible to hold ourselves back from those tempting waves of opinion, reaction and distraction; to demand what we need and cut back on what we don’t in order to get that clearer picture?

Reference: “Manufacturing Consent. The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S Herman & Noam Chomsky, (Random House, London), 2008 (originally 1988).

Reference: ‘Propaganda in a Democratic Society’ in “Brave New World Revisited” by Aldous Huxley, (Random House, London), 2004 (originally 1958).

My ideas have shifted a little from when I chose the topic last year. Originally, I approached it as the responsibility of the media in imparting opinion or information, and for the waves that creates within society. I’d thought of discussing where the line fell between media and readership, distribution and consumption; with the share of responsibility that falls on the consumer – on the reader, the watcher, the sharer – highlighting the importance of education.

It seems to me lately that the media stands somewhat at the crossroads between state and citizen; between those who determine political, diplomatic and economic relations, and the mass of the population. Maybe that’s obvious, or maybe it’s just been highlighted more of late.

In recent years I’ve felt the media largely presented opinion as fact, clinging to old divisions and maybe reinforcing them, often speaking provocatively and possibly irresponsibly for profit, rather than being a responsible voice within a public dialogue seeking truth. Ultimately though, these institutions are charting the waters of social media and technology in redefining that dialogue for modern times as much as we are.

So, the role the media plays and the responsibilities of that are seeming more complex. We’ve seen lately the potential of the media voice in shaping democratic outcomes, and also the important role it has in challenging events in the public sphere. With both of those functions there must be a weighty responsibility to the utmost honesty and transparency, as any falsehood risks undermining your voice.

On the other hand, through revenue and readership reaction, it seems the media has become accountable to the masses: there seems to be a demand for the media to reiterate the public voice and legitimise it in the sphere of politics. This is interesting and also concerning, as while democracy is a part of politics it’s my understanding that it is limited to certain aspects of those processes in order to preserve social stability as “if taken alone and as a matter of principle, it is the destruction of politics” (see Bernard Crick’s book “In Defence of Politics”).

In times such as these, it seems destabilising to politics and diplomacy for vocal elements of society to demand democratic control through media coverage and coercion. Surely we elect people with the attributes and experience to be able to navigate the world of politics; drawing on their personal understanding and also the added insights they presumably have through their roles within government or other structures.

Going back to my initial view of production and consumption, this may simply be a slightly more nuanced take on that. The media clearly has important roles to play for society and politics, and needs to be responsible in how it does so in order to retain credibility and not unduly destabilise society. And we as citizens surely need to be suitably informed so as to understand that function, to be able to interpret their meaning, and to allow them a degree of independence and impartiality in their reporting and the demands they feel obliged to make on political figures.

In all of this, and in so many other ways, it seems so important that we understand the systems we are a part of and the roles we play within them. For me this sheds fresh light on the importance of education, as I said, and also highlights the risks of economic or other factors unduly influencing freedom of speech.