The article below by Greg Beato pretty much comes to the conclusion that the use of what is now called "behavior placement" in the media is pretty much nothing to worry about. I disagree. As a trained behavior analyst I know that, as with all things, it can be used for purposes that are not at all benign. The world view that concludes that the flaws in human nature are not a result of humans making decisions and acting as real moral agents, but as a result of their response to social, economic and environmental conditions (stimuli.) B.F. Skinner proposed that these conditioned responses were learned and could be unlearned so that we can all be re-programmed to be happy and living in harmony. Kinda like a "re-education program." Yes, our upbringing, our social environment, our experiences have profound effects on our behavior, but we are still able to CHOOSE how to respond.
Eliminating that ability to choose in your world view means that no one is ever responsible for any of the crimes they might commit. Clarence Darrow in 1902 declared that there is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. Individuals, according to his world view, end up in jail because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible. In other words, "it was because I ate too many Twinkies." (Source of Darrow remarks come from, "How Now Shall we Live" by Colson, who cites "Clarence Darrow, Attorney for the Damned by Arthur Weinberg (1957)
Take the recent Shirley Sherrod incident. Some reacted to a portion of a video that made Shirley appear racist. It was taken out of context and you would indeed conclude that she is racist. However, the portion of the story in question was part of a larger story of a pivot point in her thinking. She goes on to say it's not race that divides us it's the class system created by the oppressors of the "have-nots." Saul Alinsky would be proud of her, but I digress. Shirley goes on to say she took the white farmer in question to a lawyer who was "one of his own kind" to help him. If you listen to the whole thing you begin to get at the whole truth. Not the truth presented by the NAACP or Andrew Brietbart but by listening and finding out the whole story. My question is: if a white person referred to an African-American lawyer where they referred an African-American as "one of his own kind" what would your reaction be?
Now to an even more distressing example. The link provided in the title above takes you to a video that the Center for American Progress (sounds nice, huh?) presented as evidence that the Tea Party is full of racists. Well, if you search further you find that the 50 second video contained, among other things, a man wearing a swastika and yelling that he is proud to be a racist. Another Tea Party attendee is seen saying Obama is too black. The site shows the full story. The first idiot was a party crasher who was being asked to LEAVE the Tea Party. The second was referring to the blackness of Obama's heart. This guy was at the tea party with his African American wife and bi-racial son.
But the most disturbing issue is that between what appears to be hateful speech a picture of a woman holding a sign is flashed for a few seconds. Her sign reads: "Thank God for Glenn Beck." Glenn Beck now becomes associated with the hateful speech that was taken out of context. Where is the outrage about this? This is manipulation using a behavioral technique that most of the people watching don't even know about, much less how powerful it is.
A Progressive, Walter Lippman in his book Public Opinion stated:
"The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests remain beyond locality." He also said: "News and Truth are not the same thing." Maybe Arianna Huffington should read Lippman.
Edward Bernays of the Committee of Public Information (WW1) in his book Propaganda said:
"It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind....only natural that, after war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace."
Our media is considered the fourth branch of government. It's job to keep the government inside the bounds of our Constitutional Republic. So Bernays comment:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country" is in direct conflict with that notion. No wonder Goebbels loved his books.
No comments:
Post a Comment