A little more epistomology, and the evils of NPR

[nancylebov]

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/11/which_is_worse_a_photo_of_an_a.html#more

Here's an example: search your mind for recollections about the Tiananmen "episode" in 1989. Can you remember anything-- anything at all-- other than that guy standing in front of the tanks? Do you remember who was protesting? Why? The question isn't why you don't remember anything, hell, it was 20 years ago and a solar system away; the question is why you do remember that guy. Are you better off for knowing this? Are you smarter? Or do you carry the false impression that you know something about which you really know nothing? That's the Matrix-- not only do you have false memories, but you get to feel good about being a knowledgeable, aware, citizen of the world.

NPR runs a cult this way. It offers an eclectic mix of topics, selected on purpose to allow you to think you are getting depth. You listen to NPR, and you think you're learning, growing, becoming a Renaissance Man. You're not. Sure, it beats CNN, but that's not a battle anyone is supposed to lose. Its target audience is insecurely intelligent people who want desperately to be intellectual and well read but who don't actually want to read too much. What NPR offers is sentiment; the feeling that you know something. That's why when someone asks you a question about a topic you learned about from NPR, you inevitably answer using the same language and words NPR used. Do you understand? Back during the election, I'd bet people at the bar that I could tell them the reasons, using the exact same words, why they'd vote for their candidate.

I don't think NPR is quite that evil, but it can be quite a time suck.

rbh said in the comments, "I used to listen to NPR, back when I was just a poser, but now I, um, read blogs..."

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

1) I happen to know a great deal about Tiananmen, its precursors and its aftermath. But I am unusual because I was an East Asian history major at the time and because it actually impacted my life.

2) I find this criticism rather absurd. For one thing, he is mixing several different topics. NPR offers a number of talk radio shows (as well as music), some on specific topics, some of broad general interest. From his criticism, it appears he is targeting "All things Considered" and "Morning Edition." Possible some of the other general news programs as well.

But this rant applies to all general news programs in broadcast media. There are inherent limits in broadcast media as well as potentially huge advantages. One issue is that because access to the means of broadcasting is a under government control (licensing), and there are essentially no more licenses to be had, you get whatever broadcasters choose to provide. Outside of NPR, the national and international news is even shorter and more eclectic -- unless one looks at certain specialty productions such as Bloomberg Radio (financial news). Taking issue with NPR for offering a particular approach to news not offered elsewhere is ridiculous. While one can legfitimately criticize NPR for a wide variety of things, the fact that it offers a somewhat different set of stories and somewhat longer pieces hardly makes it evil.

3) The linked-to post seems to be conflating several very different things. One is the question of the maliability of human memory and perception manipulation. This has been demonstrated in a large number of experiments over time. Heck, Heinlien dealt with it extensively in a number of his stories -- such as _If This Goes On_ and _The Moon IsA Harsh Mistress_. The experiment itself is useful, particularly in light of the occassional controversy over doctored photos or the selection of images to accompany text. But the broader question of news coverage and how the mass media or print media address the strengths and limitations inherent in a mass medium is entirely different, if potentially related.