The main source of mass media disinformation is in the frame.
No matter whether any specific claim is factual or a lie, we can be sure that all the facts, and interpretations of events, will always and without exception be falsely framed - because this has the effect of making the facts and interpretations irrelevant.
For example; most socio-political news is framed in terms of personalities, particularly of "leaders"; but there are no leaders in the sense being assumed.
The "leaders" who feature in media reports are all puppets - some are docile middle-managers, others are psychopaths, some are demented and/or psychotic... Different puppets serve different purposes for those with real power.
A favourite frame is (of course) that important events arise from the motivations and interactions of an assortment of leader-puppets. The resulting pseudo-drama - apparently - magnetically-attracts, endlessly-fascinates, and powerfully-motivates motivates almost-everybody in the world; to the point that most people shape their convictions, structure their lives, and base their hopes around these marionette-dramas.
Such leaders are never the source and implementing-force of real and important policies; indeed the real and important policies (and indeed events) are themselves outwith the media-mainstream frame - and must be inferred, and will probably never be known in detail.
The advantage of false framing is obvious... Because the official-media frame is always false (and the false frames are, anyway, changed whenever this is expedient) - then all analysis of problems, and suggested/ rational solutions of problems, are thereby rendered false - because irrelevant to reality.
False framing is therefore by far the most effective form of disinformation - and one that is literally impossible to combat within the mass media; since any true framing that happens to be featured (whether deliberately, or because or error or incompleteness of control) - is thereby itself framed as just-another theory... Itself to be discussed within the prevalent frame.
So long as people attend to, and attempt to influence, the mass media - they cannot escape the consequences of false framing.
Reality can be known (insofar as it is knowable) only by individual persons in person-to-person communication - and the "Alternative" media (no matter how genuinely outwith the Establishment) is nonetheless just another part of the System.
We need to accept that - here and now - in public discourse there is never "a critical mass" of people who are honest and informed on any issue.
Truth is only valued, hence pursued, by interpersonal groups of individuals; each one of whom is thinking intuitively and taking responsibility for his ultimate discernments and assumptions.
Because of false framing; anything institutional (or functioning institutionally, or aspiring to institutional nature) is necessarily system-assimilated as of now. This should be accepted and worked-around; rather than the endless round resource-wasting, futile, and counter-productive attempts (or recommendations) to build/ rebuild honest functional institutions.
This is a thought-provoking contrast with your last post, which takes the historical importance of "leaders" for granted. For how long have they all been puppets, I wonder? Certainly not forever.
ReplyDeleteYes I was minded of the previous post too. We have a sense that back in the day people In charge could do stuff. And Henry the eighth made decisions and made a lot of stuff happen. That guy did it. That’s why they wanted a good king . there is no sense of that now. The story now is that it is the government the parliament the person in charge of such and such institution (But not on their own..)
DeleteColin
@William - Indeed, the nature of "leadership" has changed greatly through history.
ReplyDeleteI have been watching the Tudor monarchs section on Starkey (this era was his professional speciality) - and the actual personalities and individual convictions of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth each had a very substantial (transformative) effect on England.
What is also striking is their powerful motivations, rooted in conviction, that made them all personally bold and courageous.
Leaving aside the matter of their actual personalities and the nature of the specific effects on the nation - this quality of personal leadership is evident throughout.
Even in the past several *decades* the actuality of leadership has diminished rapidly, around the millennium this decline was perceptible year by year, to the current point of having been *almost* eliminated in the West (down to about the analogous level of casting a the lead in a blockbuster movie).
At present, leadership is almost wholly a matter of top-down manipulation on the one hand, and bottom-up projection on the other.
@William - As I've often said; I believe it has been the nature and role of *bureaucracy* (progressively accelerating for many decades; and continuing with "AI") to be be the major proximate mechanism for implementing the deletion of even the possibility of genuine leadership (along with the other manifestations of human individuality and responsibility).
ReplyDeleteIt is not just the bureaucratic mechanisms, but the widespread positive affirmation of systemic bureaucracy as intrinsically Good, as *intrinsically superior* to the judgment and authority of individual persons - such that bureaucracy has been willingly embraced to displace even family and marital relationships - that has been evident, and so chilling.
Dr. Charlton, I'm urgently interested in "the Tudor monarchs section on Starkey". Are you referring to the Monarchy BBC television series?
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_(TV_series)
@Epi - Yes, that's the one. I bought it in a boxed set including 2 extra DVDs on Henry VIII's wives, and Elizabeth - both of which are complementary to the main series.
ReplyDelete@Colin - Well, that *was* the story; and at one time it was true; but not any more. It is striking that all the way up the leadership ladder, from bottom to top, in all the institutions; everybody is involved in implementing an agenda that comes from "above", but nobody knows where-from - and at no level is this agenda up for debate (or rejection).
ReplyDeleteWhen you consider the dominant Litmus Test issues - https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=Litmus+Tests - one can never locate a genuine origin or who is enforcing the agenda. Everything suggests (points at the fact that) there is indeed a centralized source; but it is unclear who that source is.
To my mind this (and the actual nature of the strategic Big Issues, as it can be inferred) makes it evident that the ultimate source is not human nor material, but spiritual and demonic.