A simple chat

The director of international programmes here at UWorcester invited me to give an informal talk (what we refer to as a "brown bag" presentation) on the topic of my choice.  She set the date for today--Halloween

A charming frock featuring skulls.

That's a giant stuffed tarantula on the shoulder of this outfit.

so I chose to discuss media coverage of the impending U.S. elections.  Our director had done a presentation/lunch chat in September and it was a very successful experience for her, so I felt fairly calm about what I needed to do.

The gathering was small (about 12),  intimate and comfortable.  I started by sharing with the group that as I prepared my thoughts for today, I reflected on two great American political leaders who had recently passed away--Arlen Specter and George McGovern.  These men represented a different era in U.S. politics.  Specter was a moderate Republican (who turned Democrat at the end of his career) who wasn't afraid to reach across the aisle.  McGovern, was a progressive Democrat with great integrity and a willingness to listen to those with differing perspectives. 

I noted that I came of age politically in 1972--the year of Watergate, the year George McGovern replaced frontrunner  Ed Muskie as the Democratic nominee for president after the Dirty Tricks division of the Committee to Re-elect the President (aka CREEP) had masterminded his withdrawal from the race, and the year Richard M. Nixon won reelection in a landslide.  My father had taken a sabbatical from the University of Arizona in 1972, and the whole family accompanied him to England and later to Germany; that meant I cast my first vote by absentee ballot and was part of an ex-pat community of McGovern supporters. 

I recounted my reaction to the London Times's coverage of the Watergate break-in on June 18, 1972.  I was sure the break-in was something the Republican party had orchestrated --even though that was not mentioned in the article.  I was also certain that once it became clear this was an act of political sabotage perpetrated by the Republican party against the Democratic party, the voting public would wake up and take notice.  Yeah, I nailed that one (NOT!).

I shared that I am inspired to work with students in improving their media literacy because of my belief in the First Amendment as the cornerstone of U.S. democracy.  I also referenced a concept called "cycles of salvation and despair" in regard to the introduction and dissemination of new media technologies.  I first encountered these ideas in a book by Melvin DeFleur and Sandra Ball Rokeach called Milestones in Mass Communication Research.  Technology can be a tool of democracy BUT it can also be wielded by those who would undermine it.

The application of the cycles of salvation and despair to new communication technology and our 24/7 media environment is clear.  On the one hand, the Internet, cell phones, YouTube, etc., empower people to produce their own media messages. Such empowerment suggests the embodiment of democratic ideals.  When people can produce messages independently, without the filter of professional media, they have the potential to engage in a true "marketplace of ideas".

On the other hand, new technology has the capacity to limit perspectives.  Consider Facebook.  Corporate influences conspire to narrow the perspectives one encounters.  Human nature also contributes to that narrowness.  We tend to select those friends who hold similar values and positions to our own.  We can "unfriend" those whose positions we find uncomfortable.  We end up reinforcing our own perspectives and demonizing the opposition.  The "Swift Boat" YouTube is an excellent example of the kind of momentum that can build around like-minded people bent on perpetrating a fallacious and libelous message: Kerry was not a war hero deserving of medals, and was actually disloyal to the country he served.  This viral video was blindly accepted and the Kerry campaign failed to respond to it in an efficacious manner.  The Dems definitely did not have an effective PR strategy and thus lost the race.

Old technology (newspapers, magazines, television and radio) receives pressure to take one or another positions in keeping with ones held by those who own those media properties.

Consultants from Public Relations firms have made an indelible mark on modern political coverage--and not in a way that promotes substantive discourse.  The constant pulse checking during debates snapshot polls lead to campaigns that are increasingly more vitriolic.

Last year at UMD, we had a diversity program called "How did you come to be here?"  We featured a video by Chimamanda Adichie called "The Danger of a Single Story".   Her message is that we can't allow external forces within the culture to impose a single story on us thereby defining who we are or who we can be.  I contend that the same ideas might apply to our political ideas.

I ended with a recommendation that we educate media consumers in media literacy and to use, among other tools, a variety of fact checkers.  I also recommended Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Bill Moyers as valuable resources to facilitate greater understanding of the media and of politics.

A number of people posed questions--including one about the Big Bird snafu and a request for a prediction.  All in all, I was satisfied with the way it went.

And now, for something completely different to end this post--I found a great sign for your entertainment:

Pee for pizza.  Take a Chlamydia test get a free pizza.