Who knew that my obsessive interest in performance would morph into something of an obsession with propaganda versus history?
I've been rolling my eyes for over two decades about how the plethora of news outlets focuses on the same stories ad nauseam. I thank The Economist for remembering Myanmar and reminding people of the existence of Cameroon, but even they don't have enough to say about Syria (history is not going to judge any of us well for sitting back while a creep butchered his people for a decade).
It occurred to me this week that the problem isn't "the news" but me. Why have I been thinking all this time that these outlets was going to include far-flung places like Burkina Faso and Cambodia? Because they've done a thorough job of convincing me--and, I assume, others--that they cover the *important* stories, so if something isn't being covered, it's because it isn't important. The cognitive dissonance has come in because I've been aware of stories that no, really, are important and aren't getting coverage. Surely the problem was that The News wasn't doing its job. But I actually think they have been. They're not just covering what is objectively important--they are *telling you* what is important.
In case I'm not being clear, let me use another word: they are **deciding** what is important, what is The News. And once you see it that way, and once you understand how much is communicated and shaped through the lens of propaganda, you can take the news for what it's worth. (And yes, that will mean freeing up a lot of time to read books. But then again...books don't publish themselves, for the most part.)
Deb in the City
No comments:
Post a Comment