No Activist, I
"I think, therefore I have an opinion."
Pretty simple summation, don't you think? Everyone I can say the above with reasonable certainty, and sometimes I wonder whether that knowledge is reason enough to go to the next step in their logical thinking:
"I have an opinion, and therefore I must share it."
Oops. Trouble here.
No, not in the way you think. I do believe that differing opinions should be shared - that's what drives innovation, and shapes cultures and societies. After all, societies and cultures are all about people sharing and accepting and expanding each others' opinions and customs, right? So that's fine.
I think the trouble is in the level of urgency in the word 'must', above. There's inner motivation that is different for everyone, and for any given thought an intelligent person has, there exists a threshold beyond which we simply can't keep our mouths shut about it. Pretty simple. And that's why we get into trouble.
Troublemakers are everywhere in society. Let me say from the outset that I salute them, one and all, and to an extent, I am one. And next, I'd like to shoot down your prejudice against that statement by defining these people, and differentiating them from criminals and activists.
Criminals act against law. Which means they act against policy, which means they act against enforced norms. An example would be a child (yes, children can be criminals, too) who decides to shoot another child in the face with a handgun. Another example would be a member of government who allows his subjects to starve to death because he believes that war with a neighboring starving country is more important. These examples are true stories, and you've read about them, so I won't yammer on about it.
Activists speak against law, policy, and/or enforced norms. At least. Shocked into action by the work of criminals, though, they make tangible, sometimes fruitful strides to change normal society (and not criminals). At most, they sit in on governmental proceedings, rally against their targets, wage peaceful war with their adversaries, and try their level best to get the attention of the people. Noble.
I'm neither. I call myself a troublemaker because I am not quite that loud. Refer to the first line, however; I do have an opinion. I will share it when asked, and I, too, can be driven over the edge to activism. But I won't march to the capital steps, or wave the big flag, or any of that. I have reasons.
Picketers outside abortion clinics, televangelists, striking laborers, lobbyists in Washington, PETA people, tree-huggers in Oregon and many more are jockeying for our attention. All of these people are activists. They have opinions. They are led by people who are paid to play the media like a fiddle. And, since the mass media replaces individual thought (a little known fact - whazzup? Got Beer? Let the dance begin... are those your thoughts?), they in turn play us (not criminals) like a fiddle and drop-forging our opinions into their mold.
That's right. And remember, they're all jockeying for your attention, because you only have a few televisions in the house, and only so much free time. But why us, and not criminals or potential criminals? Because we have the cash.
Celebrity Spokesman? High-profile ad campaign? Mass march? Concert rally at the local stadium? Media. And it's expensive. Simple math skills could show you that the money paid into these causes doesn't much help the cause. It instead perpetuates a media machine that is paid to keep the issue on top of the news pile, week after week, until the issue goes away.
Well, it can do that without my help. Because up to two years after the fact, legislation will be passed or rejected on every thorny issue we see, based on the government's findings, election-year politics, and unfortunately, backed solidly by Neilsen ratings and the almighty buck. Sorry, that's my take. In a case of life imitating art, laws will be passed based upon the view of the media, and not the people.
Case in point: Opinion polls. Have you seen an objective poll question? Don't lie. You have to choose a prepared answer, which they provide, so how can it be your voice? I use them on my websites, but I wouldn't run a government on them. No middle ground.
More: Telemarketers. Don't tell me you've never heard of them. The tab for running a charity via telemarketing is often as large as the goal of the cause itself! Are you a victim? A proud supporter of a never-ending cause? What's the difference?
Another one: Little Havana. How many book and movie deals will we see in the next year about the Gonzalez drama, after nonstop coverage that amounted to a five-month miniseries on every channel of American television? Will Amnesty International see any of the proceeds? Will even they use them wisely? Will any of the boatloads of people still en route to Florida ever benefit?
The media has, by virtue of its vulturesque perspective, no respect for the dead. Nicole Brown, JonBenet, and Elian's mom are all spinning in their graves under their own spotlights, I'm sure. None of them would have traded the dignity of their names for the circus rings that each of their families have staked out in the media.
This media activism is, by the accepted definitions of misrepresentation, exploitation and fraud, too close to criminal for my taste, so I don't want to be in the same category.
I'm just a troublemaker. Small media base, no nationwide following, I'm just someone with a big mouth. Common sense drives me, instead of every tinderbox protest. My opinion comes free of charge. Don't save me a spot on the bandwagon, I'm a home practitioner, period. This is why, and your reasons may vary:
No killing I've seen covered in the media was sparked (nor could it have been directly prevented) by any highly publicized argument over gun control. Sorry, Charleton.
Boycotts of products hurt the employees and not the policymakers, but grab a lot of media attention. Consumer: 0. Producer: 0. TV Network and T-shirt sales: no limit.
Hard-core protests lead to violence, let's face it. Non-violent protest doesn't get the TV coverage.
Right-to-Lifers have resorted to murder to save unborn babies. Murderers get more air-time.
Any check I might write to Save the Children, for example, could pay for MRE's in some soldier's backpack, since Save the Children has a spot and the Ethiopian Army doesn't advertise. And no, they don't accept canned food. Just money.
In almost all cases, the cause is noble, the people are willful, and they have established a target. My feeling is that these ringleaders know that their affluent legions simply haven't thought enough about their actions to realize that no one will achieve the goal in anything less than the messiest, media-flagging way possible. The masterminds have shifted the goal. Their prime directive has become flagging the media.
Sorry. Supporting that is like paying for your groceries by throwing your wallet into the crowd at the supermarket.
In some instances, sadly, I find that these 'spin doctors of conscience' don't care that they're now missing the target completely. They seem to be enjoying the ride on the bandwagon too much - after all, it's well lit by all those flashbulbs. I won't play that game.
I think, therefore I ask where my 'support' is going, and I won't have to ask you to do the same because you think, too.
And I, for one, respect that.
Books by Me
Pretty simple summation, don't you think? Everyone I can say the above with reasonable certainty, and sometimes I wonder whether that knowledge is reason enough to go to the next step in their logical thinking:
"I have an opinion, and therefore I must share it."
Oops. Trouble here.
No, not in the way you think. I do believe that differing opinions should be shared - that's what drives innovation, and shapes cultures and societies. After all, societies and cultures are all about people sharing and accepting and expanding each others' opinions and customs, right? So that's fine.
I think the trouble is in the level of urgency in the word 'must', above. There's inner motivation that is different for everyone, and for any given thought an intelligent person has, there exists a threshold beyond which we simply can't keep our mouths shut about it. Pretty simple. And that's why we get into trouble.
Troublemakers are everywhere in society. Let me say from the outset that I salute them, one and all, and to an extent, I am one. And next, I'd like to shoot down your prejudice against that statement by defining these people, and differentiating them from criminals and activists.
Criminals act against law. Which means they act against policy, which means they act against enforced norms. An example would be a child (yes, children can be criminals, too) who decides to shoot another child in the face with a handgun. Another example would be a member of government who allows his subjects to starve to death because he believes that war with a neighboring starving country is more important. These examples are true stories, and you've read about them, so I won't yammer on about it.
Activists speak against law, policy, and/or enforced norms. At least. Shocked into action by the work of criminals, though, they make tangible, sometimes fruitful strides to change normal society (and not criminals). At most, they sit in on governmental proceedings, rally against their targets, wage peaceful war with their adversaries, and try their level best to get the attention of the people. Noble.
I'm neither. I call myself a troublemaker because I am not quite that loud. Refer to the first line, however; I do have an opinion. I will share it when asked, and I, too, can be driven over the edge to activism. But I won't march to the capital steps, or wave the big flag, or any of that. I have reasons.
Picketers outside abortion clinics, televangelists, striking laborers, lobbyists in Washington, PETA people, tree-huggers in Oregon and many more are jockeying for our attention. All of these people are activists. They have opinions. They are led by people who are paid to play the media like a fiddle. And, since the mass media replaces individual thought (a little known fact - whazzup? Got Beer? Let the dance begin... are those your thoughts?), they in turn play us (not criminals) like a fiddle and drop-forging our opinions into their mold.
That's right. And remember, they're all jockeying for your attention, because you only have a few televisions in the house, and only so much free time. But why us, and not criminals or potential criminals? Because we have the cash.
Celebrity Spokesman? High-profile ad campaign? Mass march? Concert rally at the local stadium? Media. And it's expensive. Simple math skills could show you that the money paid into these causes doesn't much help the cause. It instead perpetuates a media machine that is paid to keep the issue on top of the news pile, week after week, until the issue goes away.
Well, it can do that without my help. Because up to two years after the fact, legislation will be passed or rejected on every thorny issue we see, based on the government's findings, election-year politics, and unfortunately, backed solidly by Neilsen ratings and the almighty buck. Sorry, that's my take. In a case of life imitating art, laws will be passed based upon the view of the media, and not the people.
Case in point: Opinion polls. Have you seen an objective poll question? Don't lie. You have to choose a prepared answer, which they provide, so how can it be your voice? I use them on my websites, but I wouldn't run a government on them. No middle ground.
More: Telemarketers. Don't tell me you've never heard of them. The tab for running a charity via telemarketing is often as large as the goal of the cause itself! Are you a victim? A proud supporter of a never-ending cause? What's the difference?
Another one: Little Havana. How many book and movie deals will we see in the next year about the Gonzalez drama, after nonstop coverage that amounted to a five-month miniseries on every channel of American television? Will Amnesty International see any of the proceeds? Will even they use them wisely? Will any of the boatloads of people still en route to Florida ever benefit?
The media has, by virtue of its vulturesque perspective, no respect for the dead. Nicole Brown, JonBenet, and Elian's mom are all spinning in their graves under their own spotlights, I'm sure. None of them would have traded the dignity of their names for the circus rings that each of their families have staked out in the media.
This media activism is, by the accepted definitions of misrepresentation, exploitation and fraud, too close to criminal for my taste, so I don't want to be in the same category.
I'm just a troublemaker. Small media base, no nationwide following, I'm just someone with a big mouth. Common sense drives me, instead of every tinderbox protest. My opinion comes free of charge. Don't save me a spot on the bandwagon, I'm a home practitioner, period. This is why, and your reasons may vary:
In almost all cases, the cause is noble, the people are willful, and they have established a target. My feeling is that these ringleaders know that their affluent legions simply haven't thought enough about their actions to realize that no one will achieve the goal in anything less than the messiest, media-flagging way possible. The masterminds have shifted the goal. Their prime directive has become flagging the media.
Sorry. Supporting that is like paying for your groceries by throwing your wallet into the crowd at the supermarket.
In some instances, sadly, I find that these 'spin doctors of conscience' don't care that they're now missing the target completely. They seem to be enjoying the ride on the bandwagon too much - after all, it's well lit by all those flashbulbs. I won't play that game.
I think, therefore I ask where my 'support' is going, and I won't have to ask you to do the same because you think, too.
And I, for one, respect that.
Books by Me
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home