Seeing Voices, Hearing Faces
by Scott GravesOkay Class, today’s Lecture is on “Text and Subtext”, that is to say, for those of you who managed to make “A”s in all your Language Arts classes without actually learning anything of value, the lecture is about Stated and Implied Themes and the ways and means by which a reader or audience is involved in what is expected to be one message while actually being inculcated in another, or various other, messages. Be sure to take notes as otherwise your lives will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and most especially in the likely event that, having taken said notes, you never look at them or think about the points therein again. Take it from a Doctor of Separate Reality.
We begin, as we often do, with “things we fail to realize”. First, regardless of the extent to which we have absorbed a kind of reflexive, “hip” atheism in our lives without giving it any thought whatsoever, we have still grown accustomed to the idea of Vox Pop. The meaning of this term has undergone various insidious transformations over time, and especially in contemporary culture, which, yes, we fail to realize. Vox Pop is short for the Latin, “vox populi” and originates in the phrase, “vox populi, vox dei“, or, “the voice of the people is the voice of God”. Stop groaning and considering the threat of lawsuits as we are not talking about a Supreme Deity, except as metaphor for the ceaseless demands of particular populations to be given anything and everything they want at any time, preferably at the expense of others. When the group wearing “Che” t-shirts stops cheering and stomping their feet to the tune of “We Will Rock You” we will continue.
As we see, there are many for whom the idea that “the voice of the people is the voice of God” is to be taken literally, and more often than not, enforced as a kind of political formula at the end of a gun. Who would like to see Dick Cheney given a blindfold and a Marlboro and stood against a wall and shot? No? Okay, take away the evil cigarette, then. Yes, that’s a majority of hands, thank you. But regardless of these sentiments, we fail to realize, as we so often do when quotes are taken out of context, that the original Latin statement, as addressed to Charlemagne in the Middle Ages, advises the king to ignore and disregard all those who keep shrieking “vox populi, vox dei“, as the mob is both populated with, and represented by, a bunch of lunatics. Thus we arrive at the next thing we typically fail to realize, which is that the answer to the question, “Isn’t this supposed to be a democracy?” is, in a word, “No”. In point of fact, this, meaning the USA, is a “constitutional republic”, or essentially a government ruled, not by individuals or groups, but by the rule of written law. Vox Pop, then, is no more than anyone’s given opinion, whether insightful or absurd, whether that of the voice of reason or a lone nut, as voiced by a single individual or a massive crowd, at any particular moment in time.
As Mark Twain, who was once a famous American author, put it, “we all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking”. Thus, devoid of reason and enslaved by emotional attitudes, we assume that those who feel the way we do have the moral high ground and that no right-thinking person could feel otherwise, which is something of a stretch, given not only our inherent amorality but our increasing inability and refusal to think at all. At any rate, Twain associated this with Vox Pop, which is what one hears when television journalists stick their microphones in the faces of people in the street. Obviously, this is why media organizations employ people who are called “editors” when we agree with them and “censors” when we don’t.
Bearing these thoughts in mind, then, or, for the scientific materialists among us, maintaining the focus on the so-called “meaning” of these “words” by whatever as-yet undetermined but merely physical means they are held in the soft tissue contained within our bony skulls, we come to the final thing we fail to realize, which is the often unnoticed but ever-present medium by which the Vox Pop is conducted to our attention, and the filter through which it is processed in the transmission. This, one might gather, would be the “Fourth Estate”, but it is present in virtually every transmission process of the Mass or Mainstream Media, whether it has any relationship to journalism or not. Briefly, then, we look at first the one and then the other, with an eye towards more detailed analysis of specific examples in future lectures.
Among the “insidious transformations” of the vox populi previously mentioned as being visible in our contemporary culture, it requires no immense intellectual effort to realize the inherent connectivity between the fourth estate and the voice of the people. The former once peddled its wares as actual hard-copy “print-media” and claimed-some assert strove for-objective reporting, or the dissemination of facts; the latter, as one might expect, predictably shouted their grievances and demands as loudly and perpetually as possible. “The People”, naturally, are self- identified groups, who claim to speak for everyone; “The Press” distributes information on current events, which includes these groups and their causes. Unfortunately, perhaps, it is the nature of objectivity to be difficult, which is another way of saying it is not effortless. Therefore, like reading, doing homework or research, or holding a job for pay, no one wants to do it. Too many words are involved, too much time away from whatever one happens to be “passionate” about, and it’s not fun. It’s too hard to transcend the attachments of emotion and to cultivate the ability to discern facts from codswallop; imagine how impossible it must be to engage in probative analysis in quest of determining something such as whether or not a group’s cause serves as a smokescreen for its actual agenda and ultimate goal.
We know it can actually be done; we know it has been done in the past. Some contemporary reporters have genuinely studied the concept of objectivity, know how it is practiced, and occasionally do it, if only to see what it feels like. Some of you might actually be able to see it in action on a daily basis, provided your parents removed the programming block to the Fox News Channel. Still, objectivity is rare and has lost its cachet among journalists, idealism and the desire to save the world being higher callings than simply telling the truth. Hence, we see another case in which something that began as a vice has become nothing more than a habit, in that the voice of the news media now styles itself as the voice of the people. How can this be so if the Vox Pop is not, in itself, the Fourth Estate? It’s as simple as the press saying so, particularly when they reference what they are doing as “civic journalism”, “public journalism” or “activist journalism”. Therefore it is no stretch at all to conclude that, as easy as it is for ideas to gain common currency through media saturation as opposed to education, it slips past our notice that the Voice of the Press, usurping the role of the Vox Pop, is now the voice of God.
Some of the more astute-or awake-of you may have already realized that the press is merely one facet of a larger and more potent means of cultural transmission, the one through which ideas and issues enter the public discourse and our daily attitudes almost as if by osmosis. This is of little consequence to journalists and their editors because they are in the position of directing the action; issues they deem “serious” are taken as such by the Mass Media itself. T.V programs, whether dramatic, comedic or satirical, follow their leads. Films, popular music, books and talk shows do the same. So one might say the Vox Pop Fourth Estate is more like the Herald of God, with the Mass or Mainstream Media having the omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence of the Voice of God. No surprise that one of the present undercurrents of the latter Voice is that no such thing as a God exists, since shedding that difficult-to-control belief would be essential in eliminating a filter of conscience between “media” and “self” making it possible, finally, to place all the contents of consciousness under the benign control of superior, enlightened beings who know what’s best for us.
So, having not yet looked at specific texts and subtexts, we have gained, some of us, insights into the processes by which they might be manipulated in order to influence opinion and dominate the public discourse. To further explore how literary themes, both implied and stated, are manipulated in this way by processes through which the Mass Media tells its stories-and remembering Aristotle’s definition of art as a representation of reality-your homework assignment it to obtain and watch the two versions of the film Cape Fear. The original, filmed in 1962 and starring Gregory Peck and Robert Mitchum, tells the tale of a noble father and husband whose family is being stalked by an evil, ruthless criminal bent on revenge against the man who sent him to prison. The re-make, released in 1991 and featuring Nick Nolte and Robert De Niro, uses the general outline of the same story. The implications of the original subtexts are that “this is what we, potentially, can be”; it is obvious that the message of the later film is that “this is what we are, and all we are.” It is up to you to determine the meanings of what these two distinct Voices are saying to you, and about you.
Until next time, be well and think carefully.
–SG







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
20 Comments
Entering freshmen at UC Berkeley used to have to take a test called "The Subject A Examination." It was used to determine whether the student was sufficiently trained in writing and analysis to go straight to regular English classes or alternatively had to go into Subject A (or what we called "bonehead English"). One topic which was offered at my Subject A Exam was "editorializing on the new news pages." I jumped on that one. As a budding radical I had my prime example, and could write the entire essay from that. The example was The Los Angeles Times, which I considered (not unjustifiably) a "right wing rag" consistently guilty of framing opinion as news. All the news was slanted toward the right, either in the stories, the choice of sources, or even simply the headlines. Were I writing that essay today, I would use the same paper as the example. Only now, the "news" is slanted in exactly the opposite direction. Much like your example of Cape Fear, the name may be the same, but the message being conveyed may be quite different. At most newspapers today, the wall between the editorial and news departments is almost entirely an imaginary construct.
News used to drive Op-Ed, but I saw that changing even when I was in J-School in the mid-1990s. I found the emphasis on what was then called "community journalism," or even more nefariously, "activist journalism" was at the heart of what drove all projects. Find a victim, tell their story, then find someone to blame for it. The blame, needless to say, rarely went to the victim who often created their own problem (credit card companies being blamed for high interest rates on people unable to pay their debts is a good national example).
I went to J-School and worked for awhile as a journalist because I like current events and I liked to write. By the time I was done with J-School, I still liked to write but I found the methods and biases of the newsroom to be disgusting. I have a lot of friends who work for metro papers, and while I feel bad for those I know who will eventually lose their jobs, newspapers made their own beds. They can blame the Internet, but their real problem is a complete absence of credibility anywhere farther than the local level.
When reporters see themselves as activists trying to tell people what they should think instead of what the actual truth is to both sides of a story, they lose credibility. Papers used to tell us what was going on, now they try to tell us what to think. I miss the daily crossword puzzle, but otherwise, who needs 'em?
I regularly participate in an exercise of notifying the editor of my local newspaper how much section A has been turned into an op-ed page through the use of headlines and simply by what is and isn't included. I am particularly bummed by the Associated Press which has given up all pretense of objectivity.
This was a great post and I look forward to taking on your assignment
This has to be the most impressive thing I have read in a long long long time. I have been harping on leftists to stop feeling and start thinking. That they mistake their emotions for rational thought. Dang this is awesome.
Good article. Just by the way, a typo in the middle of the last paragraph; "your homework assignment IS to obtain…" Durn spell-check didn't catch that.
There is so much in this dense little article that it begs to be read and re-res several times in order for the reader to feel that all the ideas have sunk in. I need to print this one out I think so I can refer to it. I may have to tack it into the back of Bernard Goldberg's _Bias_; the two have similar themes. At any rate, I am definitely tacking it up on my Facebook page for my split group of friends to potentially see and comment on.
It used to be that Newspaper Reporters were considered the scum of the earth. They were the parasites feeding on the lowest and most disgusting aspects of the human condition. Most Newspapers in the past were nothing more than scandal rags. Hearst did not invent yellow journalism, what he did do was own enough newspapers that his own brand of scandal and gossip had reached a point of critical mass and it caused enough people to fall for that tactic. Hearst then could control the message and by that the opinions of enough people to change the direction of history. When what feels good surpasses what is proper and correct we have arrived at our current condition. Feelings have no place in objectivity and Narrative has no place in either news or history both of which have lost any sense of objectivity. I am so sick of hearing the phrase it does not fit the Narrative my head is about to explode. Anytime you hear the word Narrative beware, the user of that term has already written the story and picks and chooses facts to support it regardless of the objective truth.
I'm still waiting for some university to be honest enough to create a "Saul Alinsky School of Journalism." They could probably get Noam Chomsky to chair the department cheap.
From what I've read, Chomsky is a typical leftist, and won't do anything cheap, even if it has to do with his alleged ideology.
You're probably right. They'll have to make do with a lesser light.
I didn't catch the subtext of the latter film when I saw it. DeNiro's tattoos were interesting and the character he played was quite evil. I'll have to do the homework assignment and look for it. I do see a lot of subtext on MSNBC. It's written in big letters at the bottom of the screen and it's very blunt. The other day, on Schuster's show, or Matthew's, (They're pretty much the same), was written "REPUBLICANS LOST THEIR MINDS". Whatever message MSNBC is promoting is written in simple sentences and placed under (sub) whatever talking head is blabbering at the time. I presume that is to reinforce the shout-down or diatribe of the host. I know that isn't exactly the kind of subtext Graves writes about, but it is more obvious.
There's plenty who'd do it for next to nothing more than the benefits. I don't think they're brave enough – yet – to name one after Alinsky, but I have no trouble seeing Pinch working to get his name one one – "Teaching Media The NYT Way: Without Profit, Truth or Honor"
I think of two books that were the turning points when journalism stopped being news and instead became propaganda. "The Best and the Brightest" attacked American conservative ideals in Viet Nam – it was the print version of 'Triumph of the Will' – it attacked democracy, yet was so beautifully constructed you couldn't help but admire its poetry, writing skill, its brilliant plotting. You couldn't put that book down once you opened the first page. When it made Halberstam a star, every other writer wanted to be one also.
'All the President's Men' went one better. It made Bernstein and Woodward Messiahs. They 'saved' America from the evil Nixon – they brought down the enemy, they saved this country.
Both these books corrupted journalists. From that moment, no journalist wanted to report the news, he wanted to become it.
I'm trying to build a file of stuff for my girls to read when they're old enough. I'm not confident that public schooling is going to expose them to enough good thoughtful writing, or even spur any interest in the delights of reading. This is post is going into the file. I would only change a single word. The last one, from carefully to critically. As an old math teacher used to say '' Most fine Mr. Graves, most fine.'
If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast. ~William Tecumseh Sherman
Pure genius.
uh…what?
Don’t believe everything that you read, see, hear, or feel. The press has always been corruptible, yellow Journalism, Dan Rather, etc. You mix the ease in which news is slanted, with the almost unanimous desire to change the world inside our press core, with a obvious political bent (93% Democrat) and you have propaganda. Cape Fear is a great example of the coarsening of the culture, and the classic morale equivalence arguments that make for such fun in our poisoned university system, “man everything is relative.” We’re all bad no man is honorable and simple instinctual self preservation guides us all, survival of the fittest. In my experience that’s not true, there’s good and bad in this world, strive for the latter and minimize the former. With freedom comes choices, work hard, work smart and any person in America can be a good, successful person.
We need more writing of this caliber from the conservative side. Not to make the leftists take us seriously (because they won't, regardless) but to stimulate conservatives intellectually and to shake us out of the panic mode which currently seems to grip us. Bravo.
Can I be a member of the Children of a Lesser Light, sounds like it could be a cool club.
We'll have our own secret handshake and everything.
You must be logged in to post a comment.