We posted here recently that the media often removes context (background information) from many news stories. As a result the audience will receive wildly exaggerated reports rather than a report that’s based on, “just the facts.” Is it done intentionally by corporate media or is it a matter of poorly schooled journalist? We don’t know.
We have seen that news without context, appeals to the reptilian part of the brain. The part that doesn’t digest information, but responds emotionally, reflexively in survival mode: fight or flight. It’s why George Bush and his cabal could so easily manipulate 90% of the American population post Sept.- 11.
Excluding context provides the audience with information, but with no means by which to sort it through or rationalize it. The audience is left flummoxed, angry, and dispassionate, etc. What we are not is informed to the point of being able to form a rational opinion. Some of us seek more information and a clarification, the majority of us tune it out.
The ultimate result is that this disinformation campaign keeps Americans ill-informed about the many troubles afflicting our society. We tune out because we’ve really been given nothing viable to work with.
That’s why The New Yorker magazine cover is so dangerous. It misses the context. People will respond emotionally with ethnic or racial slurs because the cover just begs for them to. “It’s okay to be a racist” and “you’re right to be very afraid of The Obama’s” screams the cover, for it confirms the reptilian brain’s fears. The reptilian brain has no use for factual information, nor a need to process for context.
Let’s face it, the American public is being thoroughly dissected by political think tanks, public relations firms, government agencies, and private data collectors. We’re putty in their hands.
My high school classmates had plenty of compassion for the frog that was about to be dissected. Who will show compassion for us? (Sigh).
Shame on The New Yorker, the “liberal” mag.
edit to clarify: (background information)