We prefer happy illusions

[sandbox]

The illiterate and semi-literate, once the campaigns are over, remain powerless.  They still cannot protect their children from dysfunctional public schools. They still cannot understand predatory loan deals, the intricacies of mortgage papers, credit card agreements and equity lines of credit that drive them into foreclosures and bankruptcies. They still struggle with the most basic chores of daily life from reading instructions on medicine bottles to filling out bank forms, car loan documents and unemployment benefit and insurance papers. They watch helplessly and without comprehension as hundreds of thousands of jobs are shed. They are hostages to brands. Brands come with images and slogans. Images and slogans are all they understand. Many eat at fast food restaurants not only because it is cheap but because they can order from pictures rather than menus. And those who serve them, also semi-literate or illiterate, punch in orders on cash registers whose keys are marked with symbols and pictures. This is our brave new world.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200811...the_illiterate/

[krissel]

That's certainly a comprehensive discourse on what the media has helped to convey. A great deal of what he says appears to be valid if not obvious, though there are some parts that can be argued or given more perspective.

The section about the language used in the speeches by contenders for the Presidency is somewhat misleading. He mistakes the idea that the entire population is reflected by the verbal content used by the debaters. What he doesn't consider is that it is more a reflection of the audience to which the person is directing their message.

For instance, in Lincoln's time, women, slaves and the undereducated did not or could not vote. Most of the media of the day was print and that required an education which was either of high quality and not the barely existent. As time went on those running for public office sought the votes of more and more of the electorate, including the less advantaged, thus the language changed. If you were to compare the society as a whole today vs that of 150 years ago it would probably be fair to say the populace today is generally more literate (consideration of basic ability to read or write).

Here are a few tidbits from a historical timeline in education in the US:

QUOTE

1889- 335 out of 400 colleges forced to do remedial classes for incoming freshmen

1917-WWI inductees have such a high rate of illiteracy that a special IQ test is developed

1941- 65% of incoming Naval Officers flunk basic math reasoning test

1954 -62% of US colleges have remedial algebra classes for freshmen

So, you see things weren't always better in earlier days.

That's not to say that in recent years (say the past 20-30) that there hasn't been an exaggerated 'dumbing down' of material to appeal to the mass market. The advent of television forecast that potential and it was a topic of discussion in the 1950's as TV began to spread. But it probably didn't have full effect until the first generation totally raised on TV had their own children. The electronic babysitter was central to the 'education' of the child, extant of the school system.

The schools also faced this competition for attention and caved in to the need to cater to the child (and parents) and find ways to entertain in order to educate. Then too there was the social promotion revolution which to this day accounts for a large percentage of students passed further on into the quicksand of subject understanding upon which they have no footing. The backbone of the public school system has bent under the pressure of trying to be all things to all people with insubstantial funding and compromised support.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using visual icons to communicate. Not everyone is a textual learner and images can be quite valuable in their usage to convey information. It's imperative though that there is a congruent education that provides purpose and meaning to the symbols which doesn't necessarily replace the more complex of concepts. That's the part that has been lacking.

Personally, back in the 80's,  I wanted to introduce a class on interpreting media symbols and influences that impact on our lives. Unfortunately I didn't get approval because most of the administration couldn't really see the future effect that visual images would have on our society. The arts were often the last to get any attention and often had to justify their existence. Other later attempts to relate the arts to technology and the coming internet age were also dismissed. Nonetheless I slipped these concepts into my lessons wherever I could. In the years since I retired the implications of graphics in our daily lives are obvious and I just sigh when I read such articles like the linked one above.

But it is all too easy to complain and point fingers. The real test is to find the solution. The author of that article does little to suggest what to do. Perhaps his only goal was to bring attention to the situation in which case he succeeded.

BTW, if you have time, read though all the comments below that article...lots of interesting conversation. Intelligent, too.


Another take on this article for your edification...

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/200...e-humanity.html

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/200...ting-world.html

[sandbox]

Stephen Smoliar makes some interesting observations from his academic armchair where Hedges has seen the results of our indifference. Basically he's a war correspondent. Boots on the ground since the Central American wars. I suspect he is experiencing the same anxiety that I am when people speak in sound bites and talking points. They just don't take being a citizen of a dangerous nation seriously. They depend on others to do their thinking for them. They accept what they are fed without question and spit it back out in platitudes. Yes most are living beyond their means and thus in survival mode, but have they asked themselves why? Do the sheeple asks any questions at all?

When I was watching the news clips of some of those debates I was always left with a sense of hunger. I thought, "there has to be more" so I would chase it down online and watch or read the transcript to see what I was missing. I concluded that the news clip taken out of context gave more value to the debate then it deserved.

People would strike up conversations about the election and time after time I would hear the same taking points that were emphasized over and over again on the tube. There was no depth to argue, there was no there, there. I was like flash cards.

I know some genuine harbingers of thought who can actually formulate a real question but amongst the masses it seemed, that they preferred the prepackaged explanation. If someone would just tell them what it is, or what to do, or do their thinking for them, life is grand. Good folks, I just don't understand how they can live on TV dinners and be satisfied.

Hedges questions that, Smoliar thinks it's fallacious and just seems to accept that the masses are different and therefore content with the doldrums. I just can't get my head around a guy who would get up everyday for 40 years and do the same thing in the same place for the same company because he just doesn't want to think about something else. They  can pick a side, like the Republicans or Democrats and just be one nomatter what they do, because thinking about it gives them a headache. Are questions really painful to some?

My kids are now 33 and 29 and were raised on TV. We would watch it and ask questions. Think like the writer not the observer. Dr. Who, and PBS, but anything really. There is nothing wrong with TV, it all depends on how you use it. If your not curious then any answer will do. I would ask what if they wrote it like this or like that how could it have ended? Is this a good character, could they use a better one. Who could play the roll better and why? I asked my kids far more questions than they ever asked me. I was genuinely curious as to what a kid's mind could envision. Can they comprehend complicated perspectives? Everything was in play and everything was questioned. This not by design curiousity in me infected my kids and today they enjoy questions. Their questions have brought them to schools in other countries and to fields of study that i could hardly pronounce.

Smoliar seems to write like a linguist and I'm sure he can argue his point but is his point to discredit Hedges or draw attention to himself?
Hedges certainly has plenty of nouns to chew on! http://www.truthdig.com/about/staff/70