Doors of Perception: WHY AMERICANS WILL BELIEVE ALMOST ANYTHING
Dani and I just got into a long discussion about this essay which is about what I call “The Evil PR Monster.”
Keep in mind my own bias as a writer and media-phile, here. This is a very good article, with a lot of excellent points about the insidious nature of the public relations field.
I took a Communications class once that defined the difference between PR and advertising as “If you know someone’s trying to sell you something, it’s advertising. If you don’t hear the instructions, it’s PR.” Sure, that’s creepy.
I agree with almost everything he says, and yet still, somehow, the article irked me. The piece has a hint of hysteria in it, and seems to reek of that special hypocritical leaning of, “Don’t believe ANYTHING you’re told…er, unless I say it.” It’s a piece of media talking about how you should distrust the media. Think on that.
I also have knee-jerk reactions against those who blame the media for the apathy and inertia of the American people. We are a lazy, spoiled, overfed and coddled country. There are a lot of problems that we ignore. But there are a lot better ways to combat those problems then to complain about the media. How about teaching your children critical thinking skills for starters? Whenever my father and I travel together, we do cultural critique on whatever happens to be showing on the hotel television. By looking at the media not as an instruction manual, but as the cultural currency of a nation, you can learn so much.
Also, blaming an unseen enemy feels victim oriented. “We are taken advantage of by this invisible control!” Well then, start proactively doing something about it. I guess this article is the author’s attempt to do that. So why does it rankle me a bit?
I’m not sure where I’m going with this, but it’s an interesting article. You should read it.
Hey there. I'm Ariel Meadow Stallings, a native Seattleite who's written my way up and down the Left Coast. Electrolicious is where I post daily randomata, but I also write for a living. My first book, Offbeat Bride, was published last year.
You're reading a page from the archives. Check the homepage for current content.
philippe
December 20th, 2002 at 3:03 am
I agree with you, the article both interesting and irritating. The ‘list of illusions’ is really worrysome. Is really ‘Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for cancer’ an illusion ?.
I’m also puzzled by the line ‘Jet fuel, which burns at 160°, can melt steel girders, which melt at 1500°’, which looks like an allusion to Meyssian theories about 9-11. Looks like O’Shea is trading ‘conventional wisdom’ to alternative conspiracies bullshit. When GW Bush says the sun rise on the east, I don’t feel compelled to question it…
Anyway, I’m a firm believer in the value of a free press to express every opinions. And the US is second to none in that aspect. Chomsky and others make quite a good living for dissenting from the mainstream. So I won’t be so critical of your country. The information is here, and in contrary to O’Shea, I think ‘you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and stopped reading newspapers and glossy magazines altogether’.
Now, what impress an outsider like me about American medias is that they are especially centered on domestic issues. I may be wrong, but I got the feeling this bias is stronger in the US than everywhere else.
amy
December 20th, 2002 at 6:19 am
I think it’s funny that he questions nearly every widely held assumption, yet even he persists in believing smoking causes cancer. For some reason he believes those studies, even though HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?
Brodie
December 20th, 2002 at 7:13 am
Its troubling in several variant ways. First is he uses the same sources he criticizes as proof for his thoeries on “the dumbing down” of America, smoking causing cancer etc. etc. He would need to pick one line to follow or the other, I think. Another reason it is troubling is because the finger points directly at the reader. In doing this he blames us, raises our awarness of the ‘issues’ but ultimately alienates hiw audience. Tough to do this and remain as rivetting as he did… over all quite intriguing.
cameron
December 20th, 2002 at 12:52 pm
FYI, “Jet Fuel” is essentially high-octane gasoline. I have no idea how hot it burns, but 160 degrees is a preposterous figure. Is this clown telling me it’s impossible to boil water by burning gasoline?
(I read some article on the WTC in which a scientist claimed 3500 degrees F)