I read something earlier today which impressed me with the quality of insight and observation.
It was this.
It resonated for me particularly, because I had been thinking about how to write about the sentencing of Charles Alan Wilson. Wilson was sentenced on October 22nd to one year and a day in prison, and three years probation during which he is not allowed to own firearms, amon other provisions and restrictions.
I wrote about Wilson in the Other Charlie Wilson War posts here and here
Wilson had made daily threats against the life of Senatory Patty Murray of Washington, over his misinformed ideas about the 2010 health care reform legislation. Those messages included more expletives and slurs than even the threats of violence. It offers a perfect example of how slurs are intended to intimidate as well as demean.
Friends and family described the chain of events that led to the threats resulting in Wilson going to jail, as a sequence where Wilson had lost his job and become ill. While homebound, he became convinced that the misinformation regularly disseminated by Glenn Beck on Fox Nuissance represented a legitimate concern.
Apprently Mr. Wilson was not aware of how to fact check statements made on Fox.
Family and friends directly attribute Wilson's actions to the program content presented by Beck.
'A cousin suspected that Charlie, who became housebound due to his poor health, spent too much time watching TV. Another friend agreed. "His brother got him a computer and he was able to stay connected with family. And he watched television and found Glenn Beck." The friend said he, too, found Beck, a Washington native son, about the same time.The power of language is an impressive, powerful thing. Understanding it is crucial to preventing the abuse of that power. We need to appreciate and understand not only factual content (when there IS factual content) but also persuasive technique, how language causes the effects that it does.
"I understand how [Charlie's] fears were grown and fostered by Mr. Beck's persuasive personality.
The same thing happened to me but I went in a different direction with what I was seeing. Rather than blame politicians for the current issues, I simply got prepared for what Glenn said was coming.
"I slowly filled our pantry as Glenn fed fear into me. I did not miss watching his show and could not understand why the rest of the world didn't get it - Glenn became a pariah to me. But I was finally able to step away and realize the error of my ways. The media lost its grasp on me. But it still held very tightly to Charlie."
We see that here, with the analysis of the harm in the language of slurs, and we see that in the effect of persuasive lying - which is what Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest DO - in the actions of Charlie Wilson.
Charlie Wilson was not like this before 'finding Beck'.
While Charlie Wilson is ultimately responsible for his own actions, and responsible for the sources of persuasion he allows to influence him, the only factor here which demonstrates a clear cause of change WAS Glenn Beck, and we should hold such individuals responsible for what they say, particularly for the accuracy or inaccuracy of what they say. What a shame that Glenn Beck is not in the next cell for his role in the threats made against Washington Senator Patty Murray and her staff. What a shame that no one, least of all Fox Nuissance, suspends anyone for their conduct, unlike REAL news networks. What a shame that there are still people who believe the right wing echo chamber of misinformation, thrive on it daily, crave that message voraciously, without critical challenge or fact check.
While I think Beck (and Limbaugh) or Farakhan if he were to advocate violence, are in part responsible for the conduct of people, I also beleive people are looking for a message which resonates with what they believe the world to be, what they believe other races or countries to be.
ReplyDeleteI feel, however, that these voices (like Beck or O'Reilly) echo and reinforce each other, which clearly causes some listeners to accept as true something which otherwise they might look at skeptically and not believe.
When we see these kinds of propoganda, we must and should ask ourselves two questions.
First, do we truly believe other people, people who are our friends in many other environments, would engage in barbarity of the first order or sit by while it was committed? Are you serious?
Second, when you realize the answer to the first qustion is "no, that's nonsense", the next question is, "So why are these 'news' organizations saying these kinds of ugly lies? Who is behind it all?" When you start to question the source of your so-called news, you begin to become again the critical thinking being you want yourself to be, and the other citizens around to be, to protect your liberty.
Part of the problem which I don't think is given sufficient consideration Pen is that older people - like Charlie Wilson - come from an age where broadcast television networks held their staff accountable.
ReplyDeleteFor example when Dan Rather screwed up so very publicly on CBS - he and others were out, gone, done, over. Ditto the news sources we have been covering more recently, like Olbermann, Williams and Sanchez.
These individuals came from a time when PICON - public interest convenience and/Or necessity dictated that you did not use the airwaves for tabloid journalism equivalent to Elvis sightings and oh, spreading the notion that scientists are breeding lab mice with fully functional human brains.
So, they are more willing to believe what is presented to them as fact, sworn to them is fact, on networks that claim to be presenting news or news commentary.
When they hear a lie enough, they begin to believe it. It is not an overnight process; it takes time. It is insidious. And it is propaganda, not entertainment.
We need to look at Wilson' accountability and frankly gullibility in that context.
How many of our own friends and family who are conservatives do you or our other readers know who are similarly misinformed, misguided and misled?
What worked in pre WW II Germany, the lie told so loud and so often, still can become believed as truth.
It is easy to dismiss this as simple folly, assert that common sense should prevail.
But the very nature of catalyzing fear is to do the opposite. To prevent reason from winning out, to prevent critical thinking, for emotion to prevail, not cold questions.
It is not only the 'big' players for big bucks; our own dear friend Mitch does exactly the same thing, apparently for free. It plays well to a majority of his audience. I don't see any of them challenging either the facts where they clearly should be challenged.