Boobs and the Boob Tube
Thursday, August 24th, 2006by Antares Gomez b.
Published on Page 7 of the August 2006 issue of the
Oblation: The Official Publication of the
University Student Council
"Great is the truth, but still greater, from a
practical point of view, is silence about truth.”
-Aldous Huxley, Introduction
to Brave New World, 1950 Edition
It is undeniable
that there is a silencing upon us; a movement towards evasion and subsequent
disappearance; a silencing insoluble by dialogue. The simplest, most
fundamental things are slowly being smothered and dragged beneath the earth.
This silencing comes in a multitude of forms ranging from the tacit returns of
abstraction in art to the more explicit manifestations of state repression in
recent years.
Huxley
discussed, in his abovementioned introduction, how the simple act of exclusion could
enact a greater manipulation of consciousness than the most elegant of
arguments. He states that, “By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by
lowering… an ‘iron curtain’ between the masses and such facts or arguments as
the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists
have influenced opinion much more effectively…”
This brings to
our attention the contradiction between the steep increase in political
killings since the start of the Arroyo administration and their virtual
non-apparence in the mass media. How is it that these incidents did not flood
our television screens or radios? A simple assessment of mass media programs
would show that murder sells. So, why not these murders?
“… they’ll
hide everywhere. No one knows who’s in control.”
-MUSE, Ruled By Secrecy, Absolution, 2002
Who owns the
means of news production and dissemination; just where and with whom does the
capital lie? These are vital questions in assessing mass media practices for it
is of prime importance that we consider the politics behind interest and vice
versa, otherwise we will find ourselves in an unscientific mess of witch hunts
and speculation.
The procedures
of content filtering in mass media outfits figure heavily in the book Manufacturing Consent by E. Herman and
Noam Chomsky. By their assessment, the “size,
ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media” regulate the field of production, if not dominate it altogether.
The very cost of setting up even a small newspaper is ostentatiously restrictive
and this prerequisite of wealth does much to limit the number of players in the
field. Furthermore, there is the fact that the owners of mass media outfits
today are those with ownership of multiple enterprises spanning a gamut from
food processing to nuclear research.
Another
consideration is that large media firms are required license from the
government, which may impose special taxes and influence policy limits. Tons of
expenditure is geared towards lobbyists and not a small number of media
executives have experience as government officials. This dependence on
bureaucratic gobbledygook has often been used to bludgeon the media into
obedience.
Judging from the
facts, it cannot be said that the interests of the mass media corporations are
at all impartial. The capital controlling and controlled by the mass media are
positioned with and limited to a ruling elite. Do not doubt that those pulling
the strings are tugging in their direction.
“Sit down. Stand up. Sit down. Stand up. We can wipe you
out anytime.”
-Radiohead, Sit down, Stand up. Hail to the Thief, 2003
If there is a
profit motive behind the mass media it is derived most directly from the
hulking amounts of money involved in the advertising industry. After all, it is
the advertisers who buy and pay for the programs and features on television,
newspapers, etc. The utter dependence on their patronage grants advertisers a
de facto power of licensure.
Media firms that
do not ‘appeal’ to large groups of buyers are virtually ignored by advertisers
and soon run themselves into the ground. Thus, they must endorse and regulate
their programming in accordance with advertiser interests. ‘Expert’ teams are
created just for such endorsements, and also for monitoring ratings and
viewership/readership.
Mass audience
appeal is, sadly, determined and gauged in ‘common factors.’ In other words, it
is achieved by harping on commonalities and minimizing conflict. The resultant
preference for material that is politically docile and intellectually unengaging,
or ‘neutral’, apparently makes for content that is saleable. It then becomes
clear that the mass media, under the sway of advertiser demands, are not
looking for just any audience. What they seek in particular is a ‘buying
audience’ to dish up to ad executives in board meetings.
From this favour
granted to evasive and spiritless content in accord with saleability, we are
able to impute the withholding silence that pervades the mass media. Also, we
have little option but to conclude that its lack of concern for comprehensive
and forthright coverage is due to a misguided drive for profit.
“No, it’s just more lock-jawed pop stars thicker than
pig shit—nothing to convey. They’re so scared to show intelligence. It might
smear their lovely careers.”
-Morissey, The World Is Full of Crashing Bores. This
is the Quarry, 2003
The need to
entertain is not based merely on some abstract ‘calling’ to a ‘craft’ but stems
from a constant surveillance over and starvation of audience awareness on the
part of those benefiting from the status quo. ‘Lightly’ – this is how it must
be done, the populace must be ‘entertained lightly’. The term reeks of
Victorian courtliness and attests a flippant regard for matters of critical
importance and a deep-seated condescension toward the audience’s intelligence.
Many see the
news show Wazzup Wazzup as an innovative take on news reporting and
presentation. Upon closer inspection, however, its coverage proves insipid and
asinine. Evasive content is taken up under the umbrella of ‘alternative’ and
embellished with absurdist questions and fashioned lingo. In the end, all it
amounts to is so much talk about traffic, sports, and the weather. As
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu says in his book On Television, “People talk so much about the weather in
day-to-day life because it’s a subject that cannot cause trouble.”
Talk shows and
public service broadcasts only lightly
touch on local issues of relevance. As they tiptoe around their advertisers,
topics such as environmental degradation, the military-industrial machine, and
corporate multinational benefits from and effects on Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) merit only the briefest
mention in their programming. They just aren’t popular enough (read: profitable).
There are some
cases where media companies venture into serious programming, but they do so at
a loss, or if not, only as token penance to make up for recent embarrassments.
Even today, programs are hesitant to delve into the issues at hand. They
content themselves with playing mediators in debate shows and panel
discussions, careful to present ‘both sides’ of the ‘story’ and wrap up with
diplomatic (read: dodgy) conclusions. If not, as ‘a matter of preference’, they
cover the ‘human side’ of things:
July
7, the ABS-CBN News Channel shows youth from different schools as having
successfully held their protest program along Morayta. The violent mauling at
the hands of the police that left at least forty of us bruised and bloody was
nowhere to be seen. August 2005, newspaper reporters are at the CCP as a book
about bangus is launched by Jose DeVenecia; none of them ask him about the
despotic anti-terrorism bill that he and his cronies drafted only weeks before.
Little more than
pulp is presented while real issues are reduced to the level of gossip.
“They, who have put out the people’s eyes, reproach
them of their blindness.”
-John Milton
Consider that
the government’s fund for public information is greater than those of all the
dissenting groups combined. In light of this, even news research and sourcing
are put to question. As media outfits cannot afford to have reporters and
camera crews in every possible place at all times, news sources also tend to be
centralized into ‘hotspots’ like the Department of Justice, City Hall and other
government centres. Furthermore, the ‘official’, with its symbolic capital of
expertise comes into play. According to Mark Fishman in Manufacturing the News,
“Reporters
operate with the attitude that officials ought to know what it is their job to
know… In particular, a newsworker will recognize an official’s claim to
knowledge not merely as a claim, but as a credible, competent piece of
information. This amounts to a moral division of labour: officials have and
give the facts; reporters merely get them.”
Playing on this
expertise, it has become common practice for government agencies to ‘alert’ the
media of ‘newsworthy’ stories in order to bump off other, less pleasant or
defensible topics that may be on the headlines.
Among these
sensationalists is Justice Secretary Gonzales. This disbarred attorney with
more than a tendency for fascism has taken every opportunity available to turn
issues sideways with his disclosures. While it is understandabe that his
baseless accusations and bluster have made for tasty sound bytes due to their
ridiculous nature, one must remember that he was probably disbarred for a
reason (read: he’s a dumbass sonofabitch).
It
is not unheard of for politicians to have a number of media personnel in their
pockets. This allows them a constant presence in the media despite not having
anything of import to say, as well as giving them a practical advantage over
their rivals. Many politicians have made good use of the mass media as a
sounding board for Efets d’annonce.
That is to say, they have found the media as a convenient tool for reducing
their political actions to a few grand statements of intent. For example,
Arroyo’s herculean resolution to wipe out insurgency in a mere two years (why
not world peace while she’s at it?) or, better yet, her command to solve the
cases of ten political killings in ten weeks. The main objective here is to
appease the constituents who, as is the norm, encounter them mainly through the
mass media. The follow-up is optional.
“As the patterns get more intricate and subtle, being
swept along is no longer enough.”
-from somewhere in my plagiarist notebooks, V for
Vendetta, perhaps?
What can be
concluded here is that the bulk of ‘communication’ and ‘information’ channelled
through the mass media is corrupt by way of the conditions that enable its
existence, and, at the same time, empty since the abovementioned filters only
allow for a withered and depoliticized semblance of thought to surface.
What is left to
us students, as members of the academe, is to resist the anti-intellectual
predisposition that obtains from the field of corporate mass media. Critical
thinking must be fostered in opposition to sluggish reactionism, and a sharp
politic must replace the accommodating bog of political-correctness. We cannot
afford to play the role of the passive audience –anaesthetized by illusions of
civilian life. If ‘Plan A’ was to sit on our asses…
Antares
"Pog" Gomez b. is currently a fourth year Art History student at the U.P. Collegeof Fine Arts. He is the College Representative to the University Student
Council where he also works as the Editor-in-Chief of the Oblation.
