don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

One of the most attractive rewards from writing near-daily essays here at SeekWellness, besides the big bucks and access to power, media superstar status and fan mail, is reading insightful critiques of articles from professionals, real experts in the topic addressed. One such regular commentator is a good friend of many years named Bob Ludlow. Bob is a former national class runner and bicycle-training partner of mine who, in his autumn years, has become a famed photographer, erudite political commentator and existential philosopher, "all while remaining well informed about health and fitness." 

A year or so ago, I  interviewed Bob on a wide range of topics. The other day, I found Bob's detailed response to a recent essay, Research Reports In Perspective,  too good not to share. I hope you feel the same way -- here are his observations about mainstream media, the significance of context and contemporary politics. Comments on Bob's remarks are as welcome as are responses to my own. Enjoy.

Your excellent "Report to the World" calling for mainstream media to present new medical research findings in context got me thinking . . . and for that you have only yourself to blame. The gist of my thoughts was that context is lacking in just about all broadcast-media reporting, not only in the areas of health and medicine. This lack of context is something I have long been aware of and is a major reason I rarely watch news or political programming on TV. Sadly, the superficiality of TV news reporting is not offset by print media because fewer and fewer people read much beyond the headlines anymore. Anyway, here are some of the thoughts your essay provoked.

One major reason I shun, reject, eschew, avoid, ignore, scorn, deplore and frequently express withering contempt for mainstream broadcast news reporting is LACK OF CONTEXT. (Another reason is that the mainstream press are a bunch of bought-and-paid-for craven ass-kissing hacks who bow down and suck up to power even when they are not working as poorly disguised out-and-out propagandists for right-wing neocon policy and evangelical ideology. I'm thinking of the likes of Judith Miller, Fox News and the rest of the right-wing echo system.)

Contrary to the mindless, superficial, lock-step dogmatism of fundamentalists and other right-wing kooks and ideologues, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING. Trying to understand the conspicuous lack of context in TV news reporting presents a chicken-and-egg dilemma. The mainstream media are in the for-profit entertainment business, they exist to sell advertising and keep their stockholders and wealthy Republican owners and CEO's happy; so naturally they're going to pander to the superficial tastes and cheap-thrills mentality of a majority that is notoriously, and proudly, as ignorant and incurious as it is fat, unhealthy, and out of shape. It has been said that countries get the governments they deserve; they also get the mainstream news media they deserve. Of course many of us do not deserve it; happily, at least for now, there are many excellent alternative sources of information on the Internet for those inclined to seek accurate information and in-depth understanding. Let's not forget that if Bush and his henchmen go down in flames, the internet bloggers will deserve much of the credit for keeping issues alive when the mainstream media were intent on burying or spinning them to the advantage of their masters who control the airwaves.

I'm sure I sound like one of those "elitists" the right-wing yahoos love to ridicule, and I plead guilty as charged. As one prominent person on the left said, liberals tend to be condescending; but people on the right are dangerous.(A couple of examples: Ann Coulter suggesting that Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times; anything Rush Limbaugh says.) In my defense, I would say it's difficult not to be condescending when you're dealing with the sociopolitical equivalent of The Flat-Earth Society. I'm speaking of right-wing politicians and their constituencies who want the public to believe there's a genuine controversy about scientific facts such as the age of the earth or evolution. Just because there are two diametrically opposed points of view doesn't mean there's a genuine scientific controversy or that the truth lies somewhere near the middle--one position can be dead wrong.

But I digress. Getting back to the point of your article, in-depth understanding of the background and context of information is something the vast majority of Americans lack, which means they are not prepared to properly evaluate the daily deluge of sound-and-sight bites streaming from the great cheap-sensation mill known as mainstream media. Consider those gross pundit shows where people scream at each other--it is obvious that the networks place entertainment above responsible journalism. They seem to have given up even the pretense of trying to promote a better understanding of issues. And it seems to me the TV mentality has trickled down and corrupted the mainstream print media as well. My bottom line: The information Americans receive from their primary source, network TV, is not only superficial but hopelessly biased towards the sensational, i.e., stories that can be told quickly and arouse emotions such as fear and sentimentality. Titillation trumps accuracy and understanding.

The Bush Administration, demonstrably incompetent in almost everything else, understands this and exploits it masterfully, until recently. Karl Rove is the P.T. Barnum of our era, with the notable difference that Barnum only tortured a few helpless animals. But now, even Rove's smoke and mirrors aren't enough to overcome the blatant evidence of the glaring character defects that really are the dominant feature of this administration. What character defects? How about pathological dishonesty and complete insensitivity--in other words, sociopathy? (Perhaps I should apologize to ordinary, everyday sociopaths who do not abuse public trust and power. Isn't abuse of power THE capital offense in a democracy?)

Getting back to your topic, I believe you're on to something here, once again. A responsible mainstream press (oxymoron) would recognize the need to provide background and context--and then do something about it, damn it. I have attended many medical conferences where new research findings were presented. One thing almost all the speakers did was to begin their presentations with the background and context within which their findings were relevant.

By pointing this out cleverly you have taken a good first step. The next step is a bit harder, perhaps daunting: That would be trying to find a way to persuade (Ha!) or pressure the media to begin routinely providing background and context along with new findings. Considering the context you're operating in, I say good luck. The first analogy that comes to mind is trying to persuade McDonald's to adopt a heart-healthy menu.

Of course this is a HUGE topic, which gets us into the realm of the BIG QUESTION, viz., the nature of human nature. On that topic I will only say that it seems that natural selection has selected for superficiality (first-hand impressions) and peer-group influence at the expense of in-depth, analytical thinking. Which isn't at all surprising, considering the much simpler state of the world in which we evolved. But that world is history, and surviving the current reality requires that we subordinate our natural tendencies (including tribal prejudices, suspicions, and hatreds) to rational, evidence-based decision making and the willingness to suspend judgment and to be open to a range of possible explanations, at least until issues are settled on the basis of solid evidence. Look at it this way: accepting reality and adjusting our beliefs accordingly is good personal, business, and governmental practice. But are we up to the challenge? I used to think so, before Bush. Now I'm wondering what we can do to prevent our precious freedom of belief from being so readily manipulated by political and religious ideologues and their co-conspirators in the mass media. Ironically, preserving our freedoms may depend upon finding ways to inoculate people against being duped into uncritical acceptance of "flat-earth" ideologies.

You have to love idiot Rumsfeld's comment about Europe being "old." On the contrary, Europeans seem to be culturally evolving towards a rational, reality-based political philosophy, while we, under the faith-based leadership of the Bush ideologs, seem to be going at full speed in reverse back to the 14th Century. Maybe the Bushites next campaign slogan will be, "Repeal the Enlightenment."

I end this rant with a quotation from Churchill: "The Americans always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all the alternatives."

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of factual knowledge. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell