"A long time ago, teachers and students in Tibet considered
themselves artists of reality. They practiced inventing it. And then,
separating themselves from every other spiritual system, they practiced
destroying what they created. Back and forth, back and forth, with the
goal of achieving an intimate knowledge of their own existence." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
Television news is about giving the viewer a dose of mind control, but what's the underlying principle?
Answer: Something is better than nothing.
Corollary: A lot of something is better than even a little bit of nothing.
Imagine this: an elite television news anchor just sits there in front of the camera for a half-hour. Silently.
People watching this would start to get very antsy. They would feel anger and rage building up inside them.
Why?
What's wrong with nothing? Why is it so maligned?
"And now, tonight, we have no news to report. Nothing happened today."
What??
"He's crazy. He's a lunatic. Get him off the air. He's making me feel..."
Making the viewer feel what? And why?
For the early Tibetan adepts, the Void was a vital concept.
Stripped of its metaphysical baggage and embroidery, Void was the place
where creating stopped. The constant "noise of existence" went away.
The ongoing parade of inner thoughts, sentiments, propensities---vanished.
For as long as a person wanted to stay there. And experience the greatest "vacation" he'd ever known. If he could handle it.
But humans felt a great need to avoid the Void. They demanded activity, flow, information.
They eventually sank to the level of passivity...and then they simply wanted input, more input, and still more input.
From an authoritative unimpeachable external source.
Hence, from the earliest societies onward, there was a thing called: the news.
It was updated. It was ongoing. It was forever.
Priests delivered it. Kings delivered it. Their minions delivered it.
If the news stopped, people felt anxiety, which, at bottom, was a fear of Void.
There is much more to say about the Tibetans and their understanding of
Void and its twin, ongoing Creation, but I'll save that for another
time.
Now, in these times, the global population has television news.
The imitations of life called anchors are the arbiters. How they speak,
how they look, how they themselves experience emotion---all this is
planted deep in the minds of the viewers.
Much of the world can't imagine the evening news could look and sound any other way.
That's how solid the long-term brainwashing is.
The elite anchors, from John Daly, in the early days of television, all
the way to Lester Holt and Scott Pelley, have set the style. They define
the genre.
The anchor taps into, and mimics, that part of the audience's psyche
that wants smooth delivery of superficial cause and effect. (In the
Void, of course, cause and effect dissolve.)
The network anchor is
the wizard of Is.
He keeps explaining what is. "Here's something that is, and then over
here we have something else that is, and now, just in, a new thing that
is." He lays down miles of
"is-concrete" to pave over deeper, uncomfortable truth.
Ultimately, he is paving over Void.
On air, the anchor is neutral, a castratus, a eunuch.
This is a time-honored ancient tradition. The eunuch, by his diminished
condition, has the trust of the ruler. He guards the emperor's inner
sanctum. He acts as a buffer between his master and the people. He
applies the royal seal to official documents.
All expressed shades of emotion occur and are managed within that
persona of the dependable court eunuch. The anchor who can move the
closest to the line of being human without actually arriving there is
the champion. These days, it was, until his downfall, Brian Williams.
The vibrating string between eunuch and human is the frequency that
makes an anchor great. Think Cronkite, Chet Huntley, Edward R Murrow.
Huntley was a just a touch too masculine, so they teamed him up with
David Brinkley, a medium-boiled egg. Brinkley supplied twinkles of comic
relief.
There are other reasons for "voice-neutrality" of the anchor. Neutrality
conveys a sense of science. "We did the experiment in the lab and this
is how it turned out."
Television news is really all segue all the time. That's what it comes down to.
The word "segue," pronounced "segway," refers to a transition from one thing to another, a blend.
Ed McMahon once referred to Johnny Carson as the prince of blends,
because Carson could tell a clunker of a joke, step on it three times,
and still move to the next joke without losing his audience.
Television news is very serious business. A reporter who can't handle segues is dead in the water. He's a gross liability.
The good anchors can take two stories that have no connection whatsoever and create a sense of smooth transition.
Brian Williams could say, "The planes were recalled later in the
afternoon...And a man was cut in two in a horrific accident in Idaho
today...And in Seattle (smile), three people reported seeing turtles
falling from the sky."
And it works. The segue works. The blends from one story to another seem reasonable somehow.
The networks basically have, on a daily basis, radically fragmented
stories, and they need an anchor who can do the blends, the segues, and
get away with it, to promote the sense of one continuous flow. So the
audience doesn't say, "This is just an odd collection of surreal
moments, this is Salvador Dali on my television screen."
The news is all segue all the time.
Not just nationally. On the local level, too. The pounding lead-in music
at the top of the show prepares the audience. A) Music. B) "Tonight,
our top story: a man ate a hot dog and died ..."
The voice of the anchor is the non-stop blending machine that ties all
news stories together. That's why the elite network stars earn their
paychecks.
Good segue people are stage magicians. They can move the viewer's attention from item A to item B without a tremor or a doubt.
The segue, the blend not only connects wildly disparate pieces, it keeps
the viewer from brushing up against the Void. The blend is the primary
mechanism for creating an endless river of "information" linoleum with
no cracks.
It's often been said of certain actors, "He could read from the phone
book and you'd listen." Well, an elite anchor can hold the viewer's mind
as he reads a sentence from the phone book, another one from a
car-repair manual, a third from a cookbook, and a fourth from a
funeral-home brochure. Without stopping.
And afterward, the viewer would have no questions.
The news is surreal because the stories are mostly fool's gold to begin
with; and they're unrelated. They're rocks lying around. The anchor
picks them up and invents the illusion of One Flowing Stream.
This is what the audience wants. The news feels like a story. It feels
like unity. It feels like a stage play or a movie. It feels, when all is
said and done, good.
You can't pull just anyone off the street and have him describe car
crashes, murders, storms, threats of war, political squabbles, 300 cats
living in a one-room apartment, a new piece of Medicare legislation,
genitalia picture tweets, and the dedication of a new library, while
keeping the audience in a light trance.
Katie Couric couldn't do it. People were waiting for her to break out
into an attack of Perky and giggle and cross her legs. Diane Sawyer had
her bad nights. She seemed to be affecting somber personal grief as her
basic segue-thread. Scott Pelley is competent, but he has his
off-moments, too, when he's suddenly sitting like a surgeon ready to
signal the anesthesiologist to clamp a mask on your face, before he cuts
into your stomach.
Whereas, a true version of the news would go something like this: "Well, folks,
just now
I moved from a tornado in Kansas to the removal of restrictions on
condom sales, and I'm blending directly into penguins in Antarctica. I'm
doing Salvador Dali and you're not noticing a thing."
The anchor is basically saying to the audience, "I'm a few feet inside
your personal landscape, your mind, feeding you all the turns in the
river, and I'll always be here...papering over the Void."
No comments:
Post a Comment