Hello Portland,
What can you do? Start your own media group.
We will not be force feed the fascist views of the Capitalist Ruler's any longer! We must counterattack the generations of brainwashing we have been sadistically tortured with.
I encourage everyone to start their own small media projects. We need to be the voice of our communities, and our government. We have the difficult task of reclaiming human exisitance, from the living hell of "money power" and economic slavery. We need to resist the desires of Wall Street and our own corporate pay masters:
Stop consuming their garbage.
Unionize your work places.
Activate yourself.
Stop working for the Corporate pay masters
Stop watching television
Stop listen to corporate radio
Stop buying fast food
Stop thinking someone else will take care of things - they won't.
We all are created equally. It is only the illusion of greed that has bent us into the tragic struggle of living under Capitalist Empire.
If anyone has wants to post links, stories, ideas, announcments on our site please contact me. I encourage everyone to spend time making their lives valuable to other people. There is a great cloud covering many American eyes, but nothing is more brilliant and jolting than the truth. Please be a vehicle of truth and compassion at all times. That doesn't mean you have to like each other, just try and be helpful. Tell people the truth, the truth is our most effective weapon, and compassion makes us human.
Thank You,
ty@salvationinc.org
America was founded by revolutionary ideals: the rejection of tyranny, the embrace of equality and the protection of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But two hundred years later, what is the promise of America?
Ths is an archive of 163 US interventions, a multi-faceted catalogue of coups, humanitarian incursions, covert actions, proxy armies, freedom fighters/terrorists and mulitlateral offensives. Out of this legacy, a complex picture emerges.
http://adbusters.org/jams/history/flash.html
SALT LAKE CITY
Pompous Mormon symmetry. Everywhere marble: flawless, funereal (the Capitol, the organ in the Visitor Center). Yet a Los-Angeleic modernity, too; all the requisite gadgetry for a minimalist, extraterrestrial comfort. The Christ-topped dome (all the Christs here are copied from Thorwaldsen's and look like Bjorn Borg) straight out of Close Encounters: religion as special effects. In fact, the whole city has the transparency and supernatural, other-worldly cleanness of a thing from outer space. A symmetrical, luminous, overpowering abstraction. At every intersection in the Tabernacle area - all marble and roses, and evangelical marketing - an electronic cuckoo-clock sings out; such Puritan obsessiveness is astonishing in this heat, in the heart of the desert, alongside this leaden lake, its waters also hyperreal from sheer density of salt. And, beyond the lake, the Great Salt Lake Desert, where they had to invent the speed of prototype cars to cope with the absolute horizontality.... But the city itself is like a jewel, with its purity of air and its plunging urban vistas more breathtaking even than those of Los Angeles. What stunning brilliance, what modern ceracity these Mormons show, these rich bankers, musicians, international genealogists, polygamists (the Empire State in New York has something of this same funereal Puritanism raised to the nth power). It is the capitalist, transexual pride of a people of mutants that gives the city its magic, equal opposite to that of Las Vegas, that great whore on the other side of the desert.
Jean Baudrillard
~ America
by Erica Williams
I wish that Life could be Beautiful all of the Time.
I wish that Life could be what Life should be for Everyone.
I wish that Everyone could see the Value of Life before it is too Late.
Life is not Religion, it is not Race, it is not Country.
Life is not Money, it is not Politics, it is not Human.
Life is a Synergy of a collection of all that Lives and will Live.
One Life has the Power to improve the Whole.
The Whole has the Power to improve one Life.
One Life in these Parameters is as Valuable as the Whole.
I hope that Life will one day be Beautiful all of the Time.
I hope that Life will one day be what Life should be for Everyone.
I hope that Everyone will see the Value of Life before it is too Late.
The Daily Grind is Aaron Neathery's excellent comic strip covering the state of our world, our being, and our national disaster we call an administration.
http://www.upsaid.com/jjackrabbit/
salvation inc. sampler
assembled fall 2003
democracy - force fu
waves - benjamin franklin freeman
tv-free - progenitor
she drives - mom
x-rays - force fu
jihad - progenitor
a fuck you to the world - t. riggs
semper fi - the tembers
something - progenitor
uncle saddam - t. riggs
the monster -t. riggs
he choked - progenitor
a historical message -salvation inc.
jarhead - the tembers
live at fease - craig as a verb
questions remix - the progenitor
the unbearable likeness of being - the progenitor
Hold by Quan Thai
t. riggs - death of a tadpole, and other songs of praise 2003
god is my main man by rebecca and tyler
mass murder under god
jesus hates the rich - so watch your back
we are all slaves to the rich, and their capitalist systems. it is your duty to change this world!
shipping is my job, revolution is my life
jobs are leaving
there's a new world order in town
the slave
violence: it does your mind and body wonders
preachin' talkin' but sayin' nuthin'
gentle, you'll wake the beast
When George W. Bush muttered those words, I knew this press conference was a joke. Bush has a set of phrases that he'll use to fill the void of valuable questions. "I would've moved mountains." "This war is not going to end any time soon." "Freedom throughout the middle east." "We'll stay the course."
He talks about suicide as an option to express their beliefs in these repressed countries, but no mention of the suicides of the troops fighting his goddam war. He still talks of the weapons that Saddam is STILL hiding, speaking with confidence about how they'll surface. It makes the "conspiracy" theories seem possible. Time will tell, and I just hope Ameri©ans don't swallow it whole from Faux News.
He ignores the question about apologizing & making any mistakes and speaks as if voters are going to be basing their votes on the Iraqi war and terror... no mention of the economy, or joblessness, or poverty, or civil rights.
"When I say something, I mean it," was the 2nd to last sentence of his speech. This man thinks he's a professional wrestler, as a leader. This was his first press conference in 13 months. A secret president is a deceiving president. A simple man he is not. His cabinet war designers and corporate cohorts have set the national agenda.
Another 10,000+ kids are probably getting shipped off to the bloodbath... we're heading in a terrible direction & there seems to be no national opposition of this.
He's not a cowboy, he's a war criminal, and a terrorist.
With over 670 (and increasing daily) young men and women dead because of an illegal occupation put forth by a ruthless bunch of businessmen acting as government officials, there seems to be no end in sight. Terrorism must stop from our warheads first, before anything can be solved. These aren't lifeless drones sent out to kill, these are kids with real lives who are in a situation too screwed up to escape. The department of defense is hiding more and more information, skewing numbers and our mainstream media is complacent.
We've got to wake up to what is happening, and start talking about it.
In early February, I received an E-mail telling me that a Mr.Karl Rove would be speaking at a Republican fund raising dinner. Some of our local Republican representatives, including Senator Gordon Smith and Congressman Greg Walden, would also be attending.
My curiosity was peaked! What would they discuss? Would they sacrifice a liberal and then propose a toast to George W. with a glass of blood? I had to know. After some deliberation, it was decided that I would go to the "ORP Lincoln Day Dinner" and see what no other liberals are willing to sit through.
There were some initial hurdles to clear. Another member of Salvation Inc. called on my behalf to reserve a seat at the dinner. She was met with some resistance in the form of a series of questions. This was to be expected. They would delay giving me confirmation of seating until only a day before the event, when I finally spoke to a woman named Shelley Ashenfelter who investigated me personally. We had a short discussion and she indirectly asked if I would be attending only to protest the event. I assured her that my intentions were to hear Mr. Rove speak and to learn more about the Republican Party. This seemed to pacify her inquiry. She took my credit card information and thanked me for attending.
The next day came and went and I became increasingly nervous. What had I done? Surely they would sense my socialist tendencies in the inexpensive rags I use as attire. Perhaps they would even have a secret hand shake or a secret password like "fiscal" or "Reaganomics". I had to persevere. This was going to be like an executive boardroom and if I wasn't calm, they would smell the fear and shred me like an Enron accounting document. I had to be careful and bring back the Republican Party secrets.
Thursday, March 11th, I awoke with purpose and left for work. I spoke to a few people at work about the event. They seemed to enjoy the idea of me paying the $50 toll to gain entry and were not so surprised to hear that some people would be paying a $5000 entry fee. These extremely generous $5000 guests would be allowed the privilege of attending the very special "Roundtable and Photo Reception". After pondering with my fellow workers about Peking duck, roast beef or what exactly "the dinner" would consist of, I left early from work to find a suitable necktie. I made a stop at a local thriftstore and bought a red tie, before making my way towards Tigard, OR.
The Embassy Suites of Tigard (one person, one night= $99) would be hosting the event. I arrived at the "Lincoln Day Dinner" awkard and early. I followed an older gentleman into the building, who was dressed in the fashion I am accustom to seeing businessmen and Republicans. Upon his entry, he was greeted by women in business suits and was taken to a table filled with name tags. One of the women asked his name and gave him the coinciding tag. She also told him that if he had not purchased a "Roundtable Ticket" he was far too early and that the dinner would not be starting for another 30 minutes. After hearing this I took time to walk around the hotel and listen in on discussions taking place outside the "Roundtable Reception". I would find no hint then, or during the rest of the evening, as to what would be discussed in this $5000 a head meeting. I eventually became bored and went to the young business suit clad women running the name tag table. I was ignored for some time, thinking that it had something to do with my age. This was not the case. When I finally asked for my name tag, there was a moment of disbelief on the woman's face, as if it couldn't be possible that I was attending. She gave me my tag and I asked which room the dinner would be held in. A younger man (I say younger because he was probably in his 30's) gave me a blue, sparkled program with a silver bow. I asked him if I was too early to be seated. He pointed the way in an uncomfortable manner. I thanked him and entered the large banquet hall.
The hall was empty of people, with the exception of a group of young women who would be seating the guests. I asked one of the women which table I would be sitting at. She checked her list for my name and showed me to my table. For some time I sat and observed. The coffee cups were filled with over flowing red or blue napkins, which littered the tables with patriotism. There were 24 tables that sat 10 people each. This wasn't a one or even two fork affair. These affluent high-rollers would be needing a third fork. In the middle of the tables were cards signifying if it was a sponsored table, as mine was. Toward the middle of the room was a podium with the simple, but ominous crest of the Oregon Republican Party. A navy blue curtain was used as a backdrop along with Old Glory and the Oregon State flag. To the right of the speaking area was an 8'x10' projection screen that would surely be used to influence and impare judgement. Even further to the right of the screen was a full bar that would be used in a similar manner. Directly behind my seat was a small press area. It was raised and roped off and appeared to invite journalists.
Slowly the Republicans I would be pretending to agree with, made their way into the room. I could overhear only broken fragments of conversations like "I bought one of those at a gun show" or "I think the school district should tighten its belt". I could hear one of the reporters behind me mocking Ted Kulongowski for a recent press conference inadequacy. The servers began to put out some of the meal including a delicious looking cheesecake and huge silver tubs filled with what looked to be ranch dressing. I wondered if these Hispanic, black or just plain poor servers were Republicans.
I was alone at my table for some time and a woman put out a volunteer sign up sheet (pictured above) on each of the place settings. After a brief once over of the sheet, I realized what a valuable asset one or all of these coalitions would be to the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign. Since there is not a true diversity within the Republican Party, at least they could then make it appear to have backing from Arab Americans, Labor or any group that usaully finds Republican policy unjust and discriminatory.
I was joined by a young woman, who sat next to me. We exchanged pleasantries and I asked her if she knew what was on the menu for the dinner. She didn't know, but her guess was roast beef. I told her that I was a vegan and we talked about what I could eat. She asked me who I was and I told her "Frank" and that I was with a christian website called "Salvationinc.org". She wrote down the site and said she would check it out. As we spoke more, the table filled in. Each of the people at my table shook my hand or introduced themselves and were very cordial to me. Bob Avery (chairman of the Republican Party of Lane County) and his wife Nina soon joined the table, as well as Ed Morrison. After examining the Bush volunteer list, Mr. Morrison posed the question "What about country club members?" then chuckled at his own joke. Across the table from me sat Jim Feldkamp. He is running for congressman in Oregon's Fourth Congressional District. Mr. Feldkamp was once in the Navy and when asked what his duties included, stated an odd acronym for his position and that he worked selling weapons. Like Mr. Morrison, Jim was also a comedian and joked about taking political bribes with others at the table.
I looked around the room as the rich men and women shook hands and conversed. They weren't just comfortable with one another; most of these people were friends or did business together. Everyone at my table had met previously. This crowd was filled with Oregon representatives, their wives and business partners. This made me very different from them. I had no connection to anyone there. I finally realized how very out of place I was and that everyone there knew that I was as well.
Soon, the dinner was served to the guests. First, a salad and rolls. Then, as everyone ate, the event started. We were welcomed by Linda Flores, State Representative and ORP Vice Chairwoman. She introduced Donna Cain (ORP Secretary) who said the Pledge of Allegiance. The crowd stood at attention with hands over hearts in a scene that I can only describe as mesmerism. Later, former Miss America 2002, Katie Harman, sang "God Bless America" to a captivated audience.
Then, the moment I had waited for came: the "D" in dinner. Our table was served the main course. It was only chicken. I couldn't believe it! A skinless, boneless chicken breast with rice and vegetables. That's what $50 will get you. I asked the other members of my table if they would like my plate and that I was a vegan and wouldn't be eating. They looked at me with intrigue and politely declined. A Mr. Hall Reed did decide to eat my cheesecake.
June Hartley introduced a video presentation from George W. Bush. As I watched the video, I wondered why he didn't spare the party members these images of patriotism and words of deception. These people already supported him and his policy. Then it became clear that the video was only a presentation of the manner and tactics in which Mr. Bush would be trying to deceive the general public. The party members, I am sure, were happy with this video. It was comprised of hiding behind the flag, lies of a never-ending economic boom, and preying on citizens' fear of terror. These things empowered the audience, while reassuring them of their own flawless policy and decisions. It was very similar to a T.V. advertisement, but longer.
ORP Chairman, Kevin Mannix, took the stage to introduce the featured speaker: Karl Rove. Mr. Mannix spoke to his friends that evening with confidence in the future of the Republican Party. He spoke of the President, as a man sure of his cause and poised to serve another term in office. He assured us that "The President is protecting America's interests." He said these words as though they were meant only for the "American interests" in that very room. He eventually ran out of kudos for the President and called upon the keynote speaker to take the stage.
Finally, Mr. Karl Rove stood behind the podium to speak. He spoke of the President as a personal friend of many years. He spoke of the President with personal kindness and called him "a genius". Shedding light on the "day to day" activities of the Commander and Chief, he told a tale of George waking up at 5:00 a.m. and reading 70 to 80 pages of agenda before starting his day. He spoke of a conversation with the President that he had that morning before leaving the White House. In that conversation, George asked Karl to send a message to the people at the dinner: "Ask them to get those 6700 votes I lost by in 2000, and win Oregon in 2004."
Add more to the list. It grows like the cancer it causes. Each one of these brands also owns hundreds of products. Some are listed, some aren't. For example, I listed that RJ Reynolds owns Kraft Foods, but I've also listed many of the products Kraft Foods manufactures. This is mainly to get your attention that a huge oligopoly like Altria is behind most of the products we buy everyday. This is also the kind of list you forward to your mother.
PepsiCo:
Frito-Lay
Quaker
Gatorade
Tropicana
Evercrisp
Corina
Gamesa
Sobe
Mrs. Smith's
Pepsico France
Frito Lay Canada
Sabritas
Simba (the Lion?)
Snacks America Latina
Frito Lay/Quaker
Copella
Chipsy
Walkers
Elma Chips
Coca-Cola owns even more...
Bacardi Mixers
Canada Dry
Dasani Water
Dannon Yogurt
Disney Extreme Coolers
Dr. Pepper
Evian Water
Fruitopia
Fresca Soda
Hi-C
Jolly Juice
Minute Maid brands
Mickey Fucking Mouse
Nestle
NesCafe
Nestea (more like Nastea...)
Odwalla
POWERade
Schweppes
Sprite
Seagrams
Sunkist
Winnie the Fucking Pooh
Altria, the new surname for RJ Reynolds, Kraft Foods, Miller beer and Nabisco owns more than Coke or Pepsi...
Marlboro
Basic
Chesterfield
Lark
L&M
Parliament
Virginia Slims
Kraft Foods North America
Kraft Foods International
Jacobs
Maxwell House
Milka
Nabisco
Oreo
Oscar Mayer
Philadelphia
Post
Tang
Miracle Whip
Toblerone Chocolate
Chips Ahoy!
Ritz
Post Cereals
Sanka
Starbucks (registered trademark)
General Foods Int'l Coffees
Yuban
Country Time
Crystal Light
Knudsen cottage cheese
Athenos cheese
DiGiorno
Hani-Snacks
Louis Rich
Tombstone pizza
Bull's Eye BBQ sauce
Calumet baking powder
Lunchables
Shake 'n' Bake
Boca burgers
Nabisco
Milk-Bone
Jell-O
Barnum's Animals (I ate those as a kid!..)
Balance Energy bars
Jenny Craig (a registered trademark)
Taco Bell Dinner Kits (a registered trademark)
Cool Whip
Claussen pickles
Teddy Grahams
Honey Maid pie crusts
Corn Nuts
Planters nut variety
Stove Top Stuffing
Altoids
Lifesavers
Then there's YUM! Foods. They have people from all over on the inside. Some of their directors have worked for corporations like CitiGroup, were special advisors for Papa Bush, were bankers, brokers and businesspeople. Apparently they own
KFC
Taco Bell
Pizza Hut
Long John Silver's
A&W American Foods
National TV Turn-Off Week is April 19-25th. Turn it off and leave it off! Read a book! Write a memoir! Call up your mum! Do cartwheels!
What follows started as a reaction article to the "Reality TV Goes To Work", by James Poniewozik article in Time magazine, March 8th, 2004, pp.74- 75. However, it's not really a reaction anymore. In the drafting stages it became more of a deconstruction of reality TV using this article as inspiration.
(sigh)
Cameras are waltzing into our workplaces. Managers and CEOs are getting the switch and working our jobs for us on television. It seems no one is safe from the morbid objectification television has to 'offer'. This undialectic television programming to see what it is that people do at work couldn't be further from mere drooling drivel. But it's not just what people are doing at work, it's who's doing the work.
It's true that people are obsessed with watching other people perfom their mundane lives, and when broadcast on television, it projects that mundane-ness as fantastic. It objectifies it. To quote the Time article, "...most people do not end up in their dream jobs; that is, arguably, precisely why millions of people spend long evenings escaping into TV." Nothing could be more mechanical or robotic than our jobs, and yet we're corking out shows like "Now Who's Boss?", and "Switched Up!" We're getting a clear picture of how far TV execs and producers will go to maximize the exploitation. "Now Who's Boss?" selects CEOs and corporate big bosses to take a temporary (and paid) demotion from their empires to work amongst the common man, doing the common man's work. "Now Who's..." is projecting this inexorable criss-cross as empathetic, but rather it is bitingly obsequious. The big bosses are shown as pedantic marytrs to the common worker, magically shown to be taking their own dose of reality within their company. Here, the master does not become the student. The show itself claims to be sociologically dialectic, but is not. It is exploitation of the blue-collar workforce, and a brazen conjecture to glorify the CEOs and the big bosses, shown in television's beautiful, magical nomenclature to compel us to feel empathy for the persons in charge. To word this another way: it is exploitation of both these social parties, however the CEOs are not subjected to the same trials the blue-collar workforce actually experiences since it's only a temporary excursion. To reprint a Salman Rushdie quote from Brenton and Cohen's "Shooting People", p. 7, "The television set, once so idealistically thought of as our window to the world, has become a dime-store mirror instead. Who needs images of the world's rich otherness, when you can watch these half-familiar avatars of yourself- these half-attractive, half-persons- enacting ordinary life under weird conditions? Who needs talent, when the unashamed self-display of the talentless is constantly on offer?" And it is precisely these disposable half-people who have TV execs and producers frothing at the mouth at unmentionable profit possibilites.
The ultimate destiny of the contestants on "Now Who's.." is that the workers will go back to their mundane lives of their work life. The fantasty is seeing the CEOs working our jobs, and watching them excel or fuck it up. And seeing the CEOs working alongside the common man is quite appetizing fodder. However, to quote the Time article, "The results are fun, satisfying and probably a decent learning experience. But while the CEOs perform tasks, they never really experience work- the pressure to meet quotas, the fear of layoffs, the need to laugh at the boss's jokes- because they ultimately hold the power." The trade is marketed as an epistemological maneuver, and that is where it owes its success. It says that us, the average worker, the blue-collar worker, the cleaner, the sweeper, the cooker, the server, should be empathetic to the maneuver by the CEOs when they step into our shoes on these shows. It is nothing more than escapism into that paradigm. The conception that this could ever take place outside of a reality TV show like "Now Who's..." is illusionary. But that's what television is: the illusion of reality.
Television is the projection of those in power to commodify and add value to every marketable conception and exploit. Television is the greatest educational tool ever invented, yet it is used for glorification of the mundane by the rich, used to rob humans of their subjectivity and replace it with objectivity. It marginalizes humanity by defining social class with exploitation. In Derrick Jensen's book, "The Culture of Make-Believe", he briefly talks of television's powerful intent to shape and influence culture to conform to its rhetoric. Jensen quotes television critic George Gerbner p. 127-28: "Because most scripts are written by and for men, they project a world in which men rule, and in which men play most of the roles. Television and movies project the power structure of our society, and by projecting it, perpetuate it, make it seem normal, make it seem the only thing to do, to talk about, to think about. Once viewers have become habituated to a certain type of story, they experience great consternation [confusion or dismay, my definition] if you try to change it... by telling a story that is different from what the audience has come to expect, you disturb public sensibilities." He also quoted Gerbner as saying, p. 128, "Television is an agency of the power structure by which those in power represent their fantasies. By doing so they contribute to those fantasies becoming real, becoming a part of the consciousness of each of us." These reality-TV shows I've mentioned achieve this, but ipso facto that the content is contrary to reality un-qualifies it. This is what I mean: "Now Who's.." shows CEOs doing the same work as these blue-collar common men, which is not true. Now, the fabrication of truth has been commodified, the show is marketed as a 'reality-TV' show, and leads the public to believe that nothing in the broadcast is contrary to reality. Again, ipso facto the show negates itself.
However, even though Gerbner stated that "if you try to change it" (the power structure), "by telling a story that is different from what the audience has come to expect" (CEOs flipping burgers and cleaning lavatories), "you disturb public sensibilities", I do not see this "great consternation" from the audience. In fact, I know that to hardcore TV-watchers, reality-TV is fuck-all. Marshall MacLuhan once said, "The medium is the message", and this is what I'm getting at here: that the television audience is proxy for ideological brainwashing by those who control its content. MacLuhan meant that it feels good to participate in your own manipulation. Brenton and Cohen wrote in "Shooting People", p. 8, "Of course, 'reality-TV' is something of an oxymoron, and the term does not hold up to scrutiny. The genre never sought to portray real life, and most producers are open about the intrinsically selective nature of the editing process, and the artificality of the situations in which contestants are filmed... 'reality-TV' is a catchy description more handy for gossip columns and water-cooler conversation than 'various kinds of unscripted entertainment involving members of the public'".
Keep in mind: this show and all other reality-TV shows are edited. I wonder what kind of content gets edited from a show like "Now Who's Boss?". Perhaps unsettled workers get in a conflict with the CEOs. Now I begin to think this is what Gerbner might have meant about "great consternation". If a scene such as that were broadcast, it would wreak national social controversy. People would be furious to see such a spectacle. Yet it might infuriate people to take on their bosses themselves in revolt. That would not be a good venture from a marketing standpoint, which in television, is the bottom line. Yet it makes sense that the only real aspects of reality-TV are probably those scenes that hit the cutting room floor. Of course, none of this deconstruction of reality-TV appears in Time's nomenclature. And there's no reason it should, since Time is owned by Time-Warner, the largest mega-media corporation in the world. That's Murdoch's empire. I would certainly not put it past them to diss on reality-TV. Poniewozik's article is merely nothing more than an advertisement for these shows, even though he touched on the aspect of the CEOs never really experiencing the work they are doing on camera.
Dying for Some Violence?
by Ana Cooke
violence 1a : exertion of physical force as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation: OUTRAGE 3a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force (the ~ of the storm) b : vehement feeling or expression: FERVOR; also; an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : DISCORDANCE 4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
violent 1 : marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity , (a ~ attack) 2a : notably furious or vehement (a ~ denunciation) b : EXTREME, INTENSE (~ pain) (~ colors) 3 : caused by force: not natural (a ~ death) 4a : emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control (a mental patient becoming ~) b : prone to commit acts of violence (~prison inmates) -- violently
Have you ever had one of those experiences: you're sitting on your couch minding your own business, maybe having a snack or a beer. Suddenly, five feet away, someone you hardly know grabs another guy by the shirt and starts pummeling him, and continues to do so until he's lying on the floor unconscious and bleeding. He then takes out a gun and shoots his companion in the head repeatedly, kicking the guy again for good measure, and the sight of all this happening right in front of you doesn't phase you in the slightest?
Or, you're sitting comfortably in a public place when directly before you, a woman with a head the size of a Buick pulls out a semi-automatic weapon and mows down six men in the space of thirty seconds without ruffling her mini-skirt, and you think nothing of it? Does this sound ludicrous to you? Or, which is more likely; does it sound all too familiar?
If you're anything like me, or for that matter the average media consuming American, this scenario is not only familiar, but something akin to this has occurred repeatedly, hundreds of thousands of times in your life. People are brutally beaten, tortured, maimed, dismembered and murdered right before our eyes almost every day and it doesn't phase us in the slightest. On the contrary, we enjoy it enough to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to have it happen every day, every minute, right in the middle of our homes. On televisions, and in movies, on the Internet, in video games and music, we are witness to acts of violence so often that it has become not only an accepted but expected and desired component of our lives. And the more we witness, the more violent we as a society become.
When Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine came out, people rallied behind the hilarious cultural criticism: the availability of guns made possible by organizations like the NRA, and villains like Wal-Mart and Charleton Heston seemed apt culprits to blame for the events of Columbine, while Marilyn Manson and Matt Stone seemed champions against the difficulties faced by the misunderstood American youth. Moore was hailed as a genius for his insight into the causes of violence in America. Besides, the right-wing conservative Christian groups' condemnation of the violent media had begun to grow stale.
Though Moore may have made a damn entertaining case for himself, the sad and more importantly, scary fact is, the portrayal of violence in the media actually does rot our brains and desensitize us to the existence of actual violence. Whether we want to admit it or not, thirty of years of scientific research has shown repeatedly that witnessing violence via television, movies and video games actually does make us (that's you and me, folks) more prone to act aggressively. In July of 2000, the heads of the country's major health and psychiatric organizations (Donald E. Cook, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics; L. Michael Honaker, The Deputy Chief Executive Officer of the American Psychological Association; Clarice Kestenbaum, the President of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; Dr. E. Ratcliffe Anderson, Jr, the Executive Vice President of the American Medical Association, Daniel B. Bornstein, the President of the American Psychiatric Association; and Bruce Bagly President of the American Academy of Family Physicians) released a signed statement in which they confirmed that over a thousand studies “point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.” (For those of you who are put off by the lack of absoluteness in this statement, remember we’re talking about scientists here- they’re never completely 100% sure about anything, and they don’t pretend to be just to make themselves sound more convincing, which cannot unfortunately be said of the powers that be in the one-hoss government of our great nation.) According to the statement: “The conclusion of the public health community, based on over 30 years of research, is that viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values, and behavior, particularly in children. It’s effects are measurable and long-lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life […] The effects take several forms:
-Children who see a lot of violence are more likely to view violence as an effective way of settling conflicts. Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.
-Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization towards violence in real life. It can decrease the likelihood that one will take action on behalf of a victim when violence occurs.
-Entertainment violence feeds a perception that the world is a violent and mean place. Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.
-Viewing violence may lead to real life violence. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed.”
Now, most of us thinking people are well aware of the pervasiveness of the media. According to a study conducted in 1999, the average American consumed media like it were a full-time job, spending an average of 40 hours per week doing it. The violence of the media is undeniable. We’ve all heard the statistics: the average child will have seen over 8,000 murders by the time she starts high school. What’s even more disturbing is how much kids not only witness but seem to enjoy violence: one study found that the majority (59% for girls, 73% for boys) of fourth graders actually preferred violent video games as their favorites.
And for those of you whose mouths are forming around the words “art imitates life,” bite your tongue a minute. Whereas 87% of the crimes that occur in the real world are nonviolent, only 13% of the crimes portrayed in most programs (yes, even the supposed "reality tv" shows like America’s Most Wanted and Cops) are nonviolent. If art imitates life, than television ain't art. I’m particularly fond of film critic Michael Medved’s argument: : “The most violent ghetto isn’t in South Central L.A. or Southeast Washington D.C.; it’s on television. About 350 characters appear each night on prime time TV, but studies show an average of seven of these people are murdered every night. If this rate applied in reality, then in just 50 days everyone in the United States would be killed and the last left could turn off the TV.”
So, the media’s violent. Does that really mean that people become violent just from watching it? Let’s put it this way: according to the findings of the over a thousand studies, the correlation between media violence and aggression is higher (that means they’re more sure) than the correlation between second hand smoke and lung cancer, between exposure to lead and lower IQ score in children, between use of the patch and quitting smoking, between calcium intake and bone mass, and between doing your homework and doing better academically. Researchers are more confident that exposure to media violence causes aggression than they are that exposure to asbestos causes cancer. The level of assurance is second only to scientists’ confidence that smoking (that is, smoking your own cigarettes) causes lung cancer. So then the question is, if media violence is so bad, why don’t we hear more about it?
The reason is so obvious it’s frightening. The media’s not going to harp on the negative effects of media violence any more than the tobacco companies are going to admit that smoking causes cancer. The sad fact is, violence sells. We gobble it up like Fritos and Burger King. And like those yummy, cardiac-arrest inducing fried consumables, the media rots our souls from the inside out. But not directly. Media violence is perhaps more insidious and disgusting than fast food, because it doesn’t kill us directly. It just makes us kill each other.
So now that I’ve gone and sparked your appetite, let me give you something else to chew on. As the amount of scientific evidence that points to the effect of media violence on aggression has grown, the amount of time this topic has been addressed in (gasp!) that same media has declined. According to a study conducted published in American Psychologists: “As it became clear to the scientific community that media violence and its effects were real and significant, the news media reports actually got weaker […] In 1995, Newsweek magazine published an article that claimed there was no solid evidence that exposure to media violence increases aggression (Leland, 1995). We wrote a letter to the editor in an attempt to correct this factually incorrect statement. The reply said that they were not interested in publishing our letter.” For those of us familiar with the profit-driven structures of the corporate media, such a resistance comes as no surprise. Corporate news networks like Fox and NBC know better than to tell people that the very programming that they are watching, the programming upon which their profits are based, may actually be detrimental to the peaceful conduct of our society. If they said that, we might stop watching.
But then again, would we? Certainly none of us enjoy the thought that we may actually enjoy or be entertained by the site of someone being arrested or beaten, by a rape or a murder or by Neo blasting the hell out of the superstructure of a building with an arsenal big enough to equip the Michigan militia hanging from his belt loop. Besides, Neo was fighting the bad guys. And the people who get arrested and beaten on Cops are drug dealers and thieves. We'd like to believe we just like to see people suffer who seem somehow to deserve it (which explains our urge to make villains of innocent Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent), but such is not the case. The recent movie Irreversible featured not only the most brutal 15 minute rape scene ever shot, but ended with one of the central characters literally bashing someone’s head flat with a fire extinguisher. It was received with acclaim and garnered various awards. California just elected a governor (the former Mr. Universe) whose fame is based largely on movies in which he brandishes various automatic weapons, blows things up and kills people. And it’s not as though he always played the good guy. He's a movie star- so what if Schwarzenegger’s entire career (much like that of Michigan governor Jesse Ventura) is based largely, if not soley, on the glorification and proliferation of violence? Terminator is a classic. Isn't it?
As we continue to witness acts of violence and aggression in the 'fictional' media, our ability to distinguish and become horrified by actual, real-life violence rapidly diminishes. Despite the deaths of over 450 American soldiers and countless innocent Iraqies, the president's approval ratings are comparable to the most popular leaders of our times. Not only that, but Bush's approval ratings shot up when he donned a uniform, hopped in an airborne killing machine and proved himself a true solider (or at least how sweet he looked in a flight suit.) And sitting at home in front of our televisions, we ate it up like ants at a picnic. It's what years of witnessing violence on our tvs, on movie screens and video games has trained us to do.
Sources:
Bushman, Brad J. and Craig A. Anderson. "Media Violence and the American Public: Scientific Facts Versus Media Misinformation." American Psychologist (Vol. 56.6/7, June/July 2001) 477-489.
"Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children: Congressional Public Health Summit July 26, 2000." http://www.senate.gov/~brownback/violence1.pdf. July 18, 2001.
Tired of listening to Rush and his drug-induced rationalizations? There is now an alternative to the right-wing radio propaganda, welcome Air America. Fortunately for Portland residents, the talk shows hosted by Al Franken, Janeane Garrafolo, and the likes are being syndicated on AM 620 KPOJ. So tune in, and get informed. For those unfortunate souls that aren't within radio range, you may listen to it over the net by clicking here.
As a child, I remember spending hours in front of the television set, waiting for my favorite programs to come on. They were usually cartoons, never news or live action programs. I liked to watch the cartoons because they were more believable in their fantasy. I remember watching live action drama and thinking the adults on those shows were really engaged in their situations, there was no fantasy to get lost in. The idea of watching something on TV that I saw in everyday life (adults and other people) seemed banal and mundane. When I saw people on television, I perceived them and everything they did, to be real. By simply seeing people on television, my mind made a connection between them and the people I really did see in life, henceforth I did reason a separation between the fantasy and the non-fantasy; anything not involving real people on television was more believably fantastic than was the stuff with people.
As I grew older, I remember that my view changed. I started to see how real movies and television actually were, and their fantasy began to grow on me. But there was a panging feeling that complained that it was all too easy for the characters on TV to actually be who they were or do what they did. It was much too perfect for Bruce Willis to tape a gun to his back in that last scene in Die Hard. It distorted my reality of human ability, so much so that for a short time in elementary school I believed I was Kevin Costner playing Elliot Ness in the Brian De Palma release of "The Untouchables". At this point I remember I watched far less television than I did films. I understood that these actors worked very hard to perfect their role. That’s what actors are supposed to do, however I didn’t see how they were perfecting their roles in order to provide the maximum deception possible for the audience to consider that reality. That I see now. Motion picture actors’ realities became much more valuable as a watching experience than did television actors. How strange this was to me!
Television was playing see-saw with my perception of reality, and its projection of it. It boasts that it is not reality, yet the mind cannot separate the isolated incidence of mediation when watching television. Your mind knows at once it is not real but TV only requires your sight and your hearing senses to delve so deeply into a separated, mediated experience.
This is just one of the many reasons why I can't watch TV!
.jpg)
