How the media shapes your thinking -- part two

If you think this article is just about your choice of liberal or conservative media, you need to continue reading. There are no politics involved ... at least not directly.

Last year, while confined to my sister's sofa due to illness, I did something I haven't done in years. I watched daytime television. She has some kind of basic satellite connection that offers a "rerun" station. That is, it takes current-running shows and repeats their older airings. Since I was not feeling well, I decided to watch reruns of a show called The Doctors. From what I've read, this is a very popular TV show but if you don't know anything about it, here's a summary: A team of medical doctors discuss various medical issues, problems, and solutions.

In this particular episode, the panel did a take on a recent study which (they said) indicated that diet soda is actually good for you. They went on to explain the study was commissioned by Coca Cola. 

Now you can probably tell where this is going. A study on diet drinks by a diet drink giant is not going to say anything bad about its products, right? And you can probably expect that these doctors would not only bring that up, but also would have substantial evidence to discredit this "study."

Guess again. Yes, they pooh-poohed the study, and did not offer rebuttal evidence ... but they did something even more interesting. One of the doctors recommended you take two plants, give one of them water for a week and one of them diet cola for a week and see what happens.

For now, we have to surmise that the cola-laden plant will do poorly but it would probably do just as poorly if you decided to use MILK instead of diet cola. Milk? Wait a minute. Is that not the drink that makes a body good? What will it do for the plant? I'm not going to try either experiment but I am going to wonder why the doctors did not explain that this study, like the study that "proves" milk was good for you back in the 30s or 40s was funded by -- drum roll, please -- the dairy industry.

I am not saying the panel was wrong or right. I'm saying they do the public an injustice by not explaining exactly how the conclusions were arrived at ... exactly who was studied, for how long, and what are the comparitive results. They might also point out how other industries finance studies that we not only accept as true and correct, but also live by. (By the way, milk does not make my body good ...) Or, at the very least they could have quoted the study completely because I cannot find anywhere that the study concluded that diet soda is better for you than water.

Here is the summary of the abstract (from https://www.sweeteners.org/category/21/article/71/does-low-energy-sweetener-consumption-affect-energy-intake-and-body-weight-a-systematic-review-including-meta-analyses-of-the-evidence-from-human-and-animal-studies):

“We found a considerable weight of evidence in favour of consumption of low energy sweeteners (LES) in place of sugar as helpful in reducing relative energy intake and body weight, with no evidence from the many acute and sustained intervention studies in humans that low energy sweeteners increase energy intake. Importantly, the effects of LES-sweetened beverages on body weight also appear neutral relative to water, or even beneficial in some contexts.”

It's nice that these professionals took a document and interpreted it for their viewers ... but how accurate was their interpretation ... or more importantly, do we need someone else to explain a document?

Here's my take for the doctors: Go ahead and report on this stuff if you think it is important for your audience to know ... but report on it completely with the traditional who, what, where, when, and why.... then interject your opinion and state it as opinion.

You decide.

How the media shapes YOUR thinking

In a past life, I taught high-school English (for a very short time). My approach wasn't to lecture with facts while bored teens daydreamed about dates and basketball and the latest dance craze. I thought the most important way to teach facts was to teach how to think about information.

In short, I wanted students to think for themselves, to carve their own opinions based on evidence because I believed learning to think and analyze is the way to learn and draw strong conclusions.

This past month, down with illness, I was watching the news on TV. The moving headlines at the bottom of the screen (officially called chyron) was scrolling along with short blurbs concerning important topics of the day.

One particular crawl caught my eye and reading this, I got to thinking ... is this leader board reporting or indoctrinating ("helping" you shape an opinion by the way a sentence is worded?)

The Potential Headline

Let me give you an example of a headline that could have worked its way across the bottom of the TV screen.

Four people killed, four seriously injured in head-on crash.

What are your thoughts when you read that? Do you wonder where the crash occurred? Do you wonder if you might know any of the victims? Do you immediately empathize with the families of the victims? Do you want to know if children were involved? Do you care that four human beings were snuffed out of existence in an instant? Do you think, "How sad," or "There for the grace of God," or "rest in peace"?

If you do, then you are indicating that you are a thoughtful human being who cares about his or her fellow human beings.

The Real Headline

Now the example I gave was an edited (by me) headline of one that was actually broadcast and it would have been correct because it reported one thing--a traffic accident claimed four lives. But that's not how the network headline read. Read the actual wording and tell me how whether your reaction changes:

Four illegal aliens killed, four seriously injured in head-on crash.

Do you still care about any of these human beings and the fact that they lost their lives or do you see this as fuel for a political issue--in this case immigration?  Do you wonder why the network decided to write the headline this way or if the local station made this decision?

Do you see how two words can completely shape how you think--or fuel the way you've already been taught to think? 

It seems that gone are the days when a news reporter would report information without injection personal opinion specifically to bolster decisions or opinions you've already made or to sway you into the opinion of the media you are watching. Sometimes the "influence peddling" is blatant opinion disguised as real news and sometimes, as with the example here, it is kind of shaded as real news. And it's almost always distinguished by the political leanings of the news source, be it radio, TV, newspaper or internet.

Do you let media do your thinking for you?

10 Modern Clichés to Avoid or Stop 'Thinking Outside the Box!'

 I recently spent some time cat sitting for a friend. In the process, I managed to get in a few hours of television watching, something that takes up very limited amount of time in my home. After messing around with the remote for a while, I discovered many shows and people I had never heard of before. Now ordinarily, this would not bother me ... but it did make me realize that cutting the cable and relying on just two networks (one of which is public television), I was getting close to the morass of ignorance with regard to what is going on in the world beneath the heavy veil of politics.

Not only did I discover a whole world of reality personalities, cooking celebrities, and detailed forensic methods for murdering women, I discovered also that either the writers or the unscripted dialogs have created a new wave of clichés or there is very little creative effort by media.

I call this phenomenon "modern clichés" because while the combination of words has not been around as long as the true cliché, the rampant overuse leads me to believe I can call them clichés.

In just a week, I heard these worn phrases while surfing various channels and shows.

• Think outside the box. Really? How many times have you used this?
• Kick it up a notch. Now this one was used six times on six different cooking related shows.
• You know what I'm saying? This is kind of like adding "you know" to your statements.
• I'm just saying. (Don't we know what you are saying; after all, you just said it.)
• I mean. (Have you noticed how many speakers answer questions by using these two words to preface their responses?)
• It is what it is. Ah, this needs no further discussion.
• To be honest ... (Oh, so otherwise what you have to say is dishonest?)
• I cannot even ... (I cannot even think of what this means!)
• That's a game changer.
• That's my final answer. (Is that show still on TV?)

Now, the 2nd Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) has 21,728 pages in 20 volumes. I have no idea how many words that equals but I would wager it is at least 13,000,000. Not surprisingly, English-speaking Americans use only (an estimated) 3,000 of 20 volumes of words.

I realize that broadcast media has to get a message across quickly, but I wonder if they assume the public will not be able to understand what they are trying to convey if they use more than the 3,000 words.

Surely with this many words available to us, we could cease employing these "clichés" and become more descriptive.

Where or where have 18 months gone?

A year-and-a-half ago, I input my last blog. The subject matter was New Year's resolutions, and I listed five things I planned to do but did not resolve to do. Here's the list I was considering:

• DRINK MORE WATER 
• EAT MORE CHOCOLATE 
• READ MORE BOOKS 
• BREATH MORE AIR 
• LISTEN TO GOOD MUSIC

I ended the list by stating I might post a follow-up now and again -- that didn't happen.

The 18 months passed as timely as 18 months should. In that time, I did manage to carry out most of the list.

(The biggest disappointment was the music promise. The battery gave out on my trusty Ipod classic so I could no longer carry it with me on long walks or don its earphones while checking email and scanning facebook. Luckily I was able to pick up a used Ihome at the thrift shop next door so I can still use the Ipod. Also, since I bought a new phone, I transferred a lot of my music to my old cell and I now use that as my walking music player.)

 One thing I did not expect to do during that time, and it became one of the biggest contributors to lack of input on the blog, was learning to use Wordpress. Also, I returned to my second favorite pastime (art), designing t-shirts for Amazon. I guess it's a matter of focus. (I do tend to spend a lot of time on new projects, often neglecting old ones.)

I'm still not sure how much effort I'll manage here because I did discover that blogging, like building websites, took time away from other writing, which does not please me. Just last week, I opened my backup laptop and looked at the list of unfinished work sitting in a documents folder, saved for later updates --- two non-fiction books, three novels (one nearly complete, one in rough draft and one in outline form) and a dozen short stories I planned to put together in a collection. This is not good, especially when that list gets added to the miscellaneous writing in progress on this desktop.

That said, I'm going to pretend today is the beginning of the new year. I put a few sticky notes on the desktop with reminders to share time between all projects and to walk away from the computer more often. Perhaps I'm relearning the discipline one has when involved with the work force. I'm not sure I want to bring all of that back because I enjoy the impromptu life too much. However, I have already opened the oldest novel to read and refresh my train of thoughts and look forward to seeing where all this leads.

2017 NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

I'm working on my 2017 New Year's resolutions. I usually resolve NOT to resolve anything. This allows me to have a totally open mind, or at least I think that's what it does. In reality, it just ensures I won't mess up and break a resolution on January 2, by accident, of course. In short, I'm making certain that I'm not setting myself up for failure.

You see, I understand keeping resolutions is a tough job. A quick search on the world's most popular internet search engine (You know which one I'm talking about.) for suggestions for keeping NYR reveals 84,400,000 results in 0.42 seconds.

One of the sites (www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/) indicates that the percent of people who are successful in achieving their resolution is 8 %. (This study was done by University of Scranton. Journal of Clinical Psychology.) Even if the figure is off, it's still a pitiful number, isn't it?

Now that we've established that difficulty exists (which we already knew), let me announce here and now that I've found the real answer to the conundrum of keeping resolutions:

Just resolve to do the GOOD things you normally do BETTER.

(Kind of a poorly constructed sentence but I'm sure you get the point.)

With that in mind, here are a half-dozen resolutions I'll been working on for 2017--resolutions I'm sure I'll keep. Note: I've included some interesting, fun -- and in a few cases suggestible -- links. Check them out to see where they lead.

DRINK MORE WATER

Even if you're not interested in hydration, you might be interested in this site which pinpoints natural springs across the U.S. and in parts of Canada. (Might make for an interesting if very long road trip.)

EAT MORE CHOCOLATE

After all, according to Charles Schultz, "All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt." (Who are we to argue?)

READ MORE BOOKS

I can't imagine a day without reading so this won't take effort. This year I'm focusing on learning more about how the brain operates.

BREATH MORE AIR

Does this really need additional input? In Nevada, you can still smoke in public places, especially in casinos, though many are now sporting smoke-free areas.

LISTEN TO GOOD MUSIC

I know I have my trusty mp3 player as well as access to all kinds of music on the web, but there's something special about actually being up close to music while it's happening.

That's it. I'm definitely setting myself up for success. I was thinking of doing a follow-up every now and then but I don't think that's necessary. What I would like is a suggestion or two that I can add to the list. Anybody?

I'm Still Standing

Or rather, I'm still moving.

This blog has been temporarily (a long temporarily) on hold. It will  be revived in the near future, after I've finished a new venture that's become almost overwhelming.

The writing continues to fill up all the empty spaces on my hard drive and eventually the words will find their way here.

Meanwhile. it's nearing the end of a year. I'm hoping to have the big project wrapped up by the last day of this month.

I hope to have a Merry Christmas and wish the same to you.

Later,
m

Don't clean up my act

Even a few days after reading about the app, my body is still reacting the way it does when I accidentally bite into a burrito filled with sriracha sauce. Maybe my face did not change to watermelon red and my cheeks did not streak with tears, but the sting, oh the sting, it certainly does exist.

What is this app that has me feeling so irritated?

It is the modern-day version of bowdlerising, the so-named cleansing of the English language to make it more acceptable to some unidentified group of individuals--well, maybe not so unidentified in some cases.

To me, this is censureship at the lowest level, right down there with book burners. Yes, down there, not up there, because I am sure there is a hot place for those folks who find it necessary to make sure I do not get them verbally mixed up with the offspring of their wayward female terrier.

Clean Reader! It is available through the customary downloading sites and it will zip through any book on your electronic reader, zap out "dirty" words and replace them with "clean" words.

Can you imagine the lack of satisfaction the reader gets when reading this line?
[Frankly,] My Dear, I don't give a pitooey! (Gone with the Wind)

And how much of a rally would result if the Admiral had cried,
Gosh dang the torpedos (David Farragut)

Do you think we would still be quoting Paddy Chayefsky if his sadly disillusioned character had shouted
I'm mad as heck and I can't take it anymore. (Network)

Maybe this would be acceptable in third grade (but would a third grade kid actually be reading this play)...
Darn Yankees (Broadway musical)

 Of course, Twain has already been sanitized by the academic world so maybe this is superfluous:
Go to Heaven for the climate, that other place for the company. (Twain)

We either love or hate Shakeaspeare. I think we would really dislike him if he had written this:
…[thou] art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pander, and the son and heir of a mongrel female dog. (King Lear)
I had a love/hate relationship with William Blake when trying to prepare my thesis. Maybe I should have done a clean up version of his work instead.
The Marriage of Heaven and Something Else (Blake)

If I downloaded the clean up app and applied it to my ebooks, I am sure I would find many examples of the sanitized segments.

I am not going to download it! Are You?