"The Personnel Chief said: 'Thin, tall, geeky, bespectacled,
somewhat remote, wry, scientific---if you can affect that presentation,
you'll automatically enjoy a degree of success, no matter what you're
talking about. Why? Because you pass the juice test: you've got no
juice left, and therefore you aren't dangerous.'" (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
A few decades ago, "positioning" became a popular concept among
public-relations consultants. The idea was, a corporation would invent
and flesh out a story about where it wanted to be "coming from." And
then people would, in fact, see the corporation "in that place."
Major media have long been adept in inventing their position: Objective. Neutral. Fact-seeking. Rigorous. Balanced.
The strongest position, and the one media carve out as a form of self-protection is: "Reasonable people can disagree."
This is the capper.
It allows media companies to refrain from investigating a vital issue
down to its core and discovering the truth, followed by assigning blame
to the correct persons.
Instead, newspapers and networks offer the time-honored: "This expert
says A, while that expert says B." End of story, because...reasonable
people can disagree.
For example, if several million young children, including babies, are
being dosed with highly toxic psychiatric drugs, after being diagnosed
with mental disorders based on zero scientific evidence, this would
constitute a "vital issue," yes? An issue that grotesquely impacts the
life and health and future of these children. It calls out for deep
investigation, truth, and assignment of blame. It calls for relentless
pressure from the press.
But, the whole matter can be diverted into: "Expert 1 says A, while expert 2 says B." A removed position can thus be created
for the reporting outlet. No need to investigate to the bottom of the scandal. No need to express any passion whatsoever.
The public, by and large, overlooks the obvious ongoing crime and
tragedy, because the media aren't getting in an uproar about it. "Well,
if the news people don't think it's that dangerous and immediate, it's
okay. Why worry?"
Media: "We don't jump the gun. We gather information, we contemplate, we consider, and then we present what we know..."
No they don't. That's just their self-invented position. On issues and
stories that cross forbidden lines, they postpone, delay, and then
offer two opposing views, because "reasonable people can disagree."
Because they can make it look like two reasonable people disagreeing.
Take the issue of Libya after Ghaddafi. After the US disposed of
Ghaddafi and wrecked the country, reporters could go over and assemble a
huge number of horrific and damaging facts and photos and videos, and
their newspapers and networks could pound on this story day after day,
and then certain US leaders would come sharply into the crosshairs. But
instead, more safely, run a few stories, quote a few experts with
different views, and leave it that. Reasonable people disagree.
That's what media outlets do to position themselves. If they dug and
found the bottom truth on any vital matter, brought the correct
criminals into focus, attacked them, and exerted all possible pressure
for prosecutions----then what? Then they would be changing their basic
position.
Then their audience would expect media to keep doing that sort of thing on every vital story. No, no, no. That must never happen.
***Since the public takes many cues from media (the great teacher),
private individuals also position themselves as neutral, distant, bland,
empty of passion.
God forbid a private citizen, in a "social interaction," would express a
passionate view backed up by evidence. His friends and colleagues
would slowly step away, as if he might be contagious, or packing
explosives.
"Just remember, Bob, reasonable people can disagree. Don't fly off the handle."
This is also a lead-in to political correctness:
"Bob, did you just hear the words you were using? Be nice. You could offend someone."
Or worse, "trigger" someone.
Media personalities are adept at making any issue feel reasonable.
"Well, Jim, although several university scientists are releasing
information about the moon being made of green cheese, NASA has
published several studies forwarding evidence that the cheese is
actually a brand of Moon soil that merely has superficial similarities
to cheddar and Fontina. We'll have to wait and see how this plays
out..."
Lesson learned. Better to hang back and see what happens, rather than
commit, make an assertion, and then get caught with your pants down.
There's a twist, too. Copying media and PR agencies, you can make the
most absurd idea seem possible merely by employing a reasonable tone:
"Look, when computer power catches up to and passes human brain power,
the ability to process a thousand trillion pieces of data in .000001 of a
second will imply a basic shift. The IQ inherent in that capability
will be on the order of 100,000, at minimum. It makes sense to infer
that whatever the source of the universe is, it will at that point
reveal itself to the new level of intelligence..."
Sure it will.
There is another bottom-line (illogical) conclusion in the overall game
I'm describing: the truth is unavailable; therefore, in its absence,
above all be reasonable.
Or: "Don't worry. People commit spiritual, mental, emotional, and
psychic suicide all the time. Join the crowd. Appear reasonable.
That'll get you by and win you friends."
Corollary: If you express emotion that carries electricity, you're
"ranting." There is something wrong with you. You should seek help.
Media copy scientists in their style of presentation. As if the news is
entirely objective: "We ran the experiment in the lab, and this is the
result."
When enough passion has been drained from an individual, it's guaranteed
that he can't create. He's immobile. A stone in a garden. A sunset
with no sun. In a mild drizzle, he walks calmly, cultivating his
ability to pass between drops.
Oh, he wants to create something, with every fiber of his being. He
wants to step out of the shadows of his eternal winter and become an
artist of reality. But he has the good sense to pull back. He has the
good sense to give himself every excuse in the book. He has the good
sense to give small praise where praise is due but do nothing himself.
He sits and watches the news. The presentation/tone confirms everything
he has accomplished to shape his own personality. And why shouldn't
it? He ingested his basic lessons from the news.
Maybe I could be a broadcaster, he thinks. I could become the voice
that describes what is real and what isn't. I could narrate the
stories. I could position myself to be active and outgoing, while
remaining passive. I could gain rewards as a high-level android...I
could be, above all else, reasonable.
No comments:
Post a Comment