When I was teaching in England I had to prepare students for their final exam, which would be having a debate on current affairs. And I am still wondering about the pedagogic effect of such practice. To learn languages is perfect, as it allows students to use language purposefully. But what about its consequences in educating them to language? It depends on how it is done.
The problem is that the difference between animal communication and human communication is that human communication is very creative. In other words men can lie or invent the most manipulative ways to get what they want. The funny thing is that this is one of the things that distinguish us from other animals.
But what is interesting is that we are all Pinocchios: we tell lies all the time, often not being aware of it, but we are very bad at recognizing them. Is this advantageous? Probably for the individuals who can speak all the time and be heard, but not for the majority of listeners. Very bad as far as the whole species is concerned.
Going back to debates, while preparing these debates for the students I realized that for certain topics I lacked the knowledge of the facts. In that case my arguments ended up being pure rhetoric, they could say anything and its contrary with no logical contradiction. A pure game. No relationship with the facts. Like some debates on TV. In other cases I knew certain facts that made the whole game completely fall apart. Like that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and many others wanted just to steal some oil from other countries, that they were not interested in spreading democracy because their allies were despotic countries such as Saudi Arabia, but that they just wanted to make money for themselves and the richest people in their countries while telling lies to the rest of the population.
And I will never forget myself pretending to be in favour on the war and asking a student this question an American student asks Chomsky: if we can benefit from it, why not? And he was 15 but he looked at me with such a disgusted face that I felt ashamed of what I had just said. Because to me it made a little bit sense...after all that writing essays on Machiavelli. I will never forget his look.
However, when we did debates where no facts where available due to my ignorance, the students might have thought that both the arguments were true at the same time. But no. They were valid but not true. They were valid arguments but nothing to do with the real world. They could have ended up believing that nothing is true in this world or two opposite things were true at the same time. But no. The truth is out there. Objective knowledge is possible if we have facts. They can destroy any biased knowledge (lie)or any biased knowledge disguised as objective (double lie). And the students need to be aware of how poweful and misleading language is and that facts are important.
This is what is the major theme of the movie Frost/Nixon, which should undoubtedly have won an Oscar... Two guys going along speaking for a whole movie, debating until a document comes out that explains everything and Nixon cannot but admit that he ‘was wrong’. And this is what should happen: journalists should find out facts and confront politicians with them. So that they could not tell lies anymore.
Now this language that allows us to lie is worrying. It probably appeared by chance. And it became a feature of the whole species as the individuals who could lie best and more were in a position of advantage and could reproduce more. But the final proof on whether this is advantageous for the species as a whole or not would be only the fact that from our species there will develop other species with the same feature. Like from the fist birds developed many other species with wings as it was advantageous to have them. If we go on lying like that and believing in lies we’ll end up destroying our habitat and I doubt that this will happen. But apart from being very selfish and good at telling lies we are still clever after all...
The problem with Pinocchio is that he could not see the truth which was clear in front of him (he had a pine in his eyes, from this comes his name in Italian). But once he could see and stopped acting as a puppet being manipulated by others and became a real boy.
Friday, March 27, 2009
How media manipulate us
Manipulation. What is being manipulated? This happens when we end up believing, in a way or another, that some things are good for us even though they actually go against our own interests. How can you say that such a nice word as freedom is not good? Everyone wants to be free. If someone comes to us and asks us: do you think that anyone should be completely free to do whatever they want, with no constraints at all? We would immediately say yes. But we could get as an answer: Well, then, because I am more powerful than you, idiot, I am free to kick you in the ass. This is an example of being manipulated, when someone believes in something that actually goes against their own interests without realizing it.
Yesterday in the class someone said that the problems of a CEO are more important that those of people who don’t get enough funding for education and deserve, for this reason, more attention by the media. This is because he wants to become a CEO. I hope he does. But what if Obama decides to cut all the funds for public universities and give them to the CEO and he has to pay a huge amount of money next year? And he would like to protest but they are all focusing on the CEO problems? Probably the only way for us to understand injustice is when we actually experience it. And because TV has manipulated our brain so that we tend to believe that our interests are the same as the rich and the famous, we believe that who is less wealthy has got less right to be taken into account, is worth less than the rich and the famous.
Ii is like if I said that Britney Spears has more right to have her problems taken into account than a poor girl because this is what TV has made me believe. But what are the chances that I become Britney Spears when I grow up? Let’s say 95%. And what about that 5%? What if something unexpected happens and I lose my money because I get ill and I have to give everything I have to the doctors, or Obama suddently and unexpectedly tells me that I have to pay a huge amount of money for my education? Then If I am just a little bit reasonable I have to take into account that 5% and admit that both if I become Britney or not I should have the same rights, my problems should be considered worth it being listened to just in the same way.
Yesterday in the class someone said that the problems of a CEO are more important that those of people who don’t get enough funding for education and deserve, for this reason, more attention by the media. This is because he wants to become a CEO. I hope he does. But what if Obama decides to cut all the funds for public universities and give them to the CEO and he has to pay a huge amount of money next year? And he would like to protest but they are all focusing on the CEO problems? Probably the only way for us to understand injustice is when we actually experience it. And because TV has manipulated our brain so that we tend to believe that our interests are the same as the rich and the famous, we believe that who is less wealthy has got less right to be taken into account, is worth less than the rich and the famous.
Ii is like if I said that Britney Spears has more right to have her problems taken into account than a poor girl because this is what TV has made me believe. But what are the chances that I become Britney Spears when I grow up? Let’s say 95%. And what about that 5%? What if something unexpected happens and I lose my money because I get ill and I have to give everything I have to the doctors, or Obama suddently and unexpectedly tells me that I have to pay a huge amount of money for my education? Then If I am just a little bit reasonable I have to take into account that 5% and admit that both if I become Britney or not I should have the same rights, my problems should be considered worth it being listened to just in the same way.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Daily Show
Intellectuals and artists have always criticized discourse, often by means of satire. In particular when censorship would stop them from proposing a different discourse, they would focus on criticizing the dominant discourse.
In our world this is necessary as ever before, as discourse has become very powerful, because it is amplyfied by the mass media, and not very diverse, because the mass media are more and more concentrated in the hands of very few rich and powerful people. For this reason common people need more and more to be reminded of how powerful, dangerous and misleading words are. We need to be constantly reminded that words are often said by someone who would like to pursuit some private purposes, which might not be beneficial for us by the same degree.
The criticism that Jon Stewart addresses to the media industry in his program called The Daily Show is very interesting. In the episode of March 9 he criticized a financial analyst for giving false information to investors causing them to lose their money. Then he made a satirical report of the speech given by the English prime minister Gordon Brown during his visit to the USA. He laughed at him praising the USA and said a joke on him encouraging the USA to ‘invade the subcontinent’. Then he laughed at Brown copying Obama’s words in trying to imitate his discourse (and I believe Berlusconi is there trying to study the new rhetorical tricks coming from the USA to imitate them so that the Italian audiences can benefit from them too). This was a very good criticism of political discourse in general and of how politicians make use of standardized patterns of discourse that don't have anything to do with real facts just to seduce people. He said that Brown was copying Obama’s song just like a cover band would do.
Then, when talking about the gift exchanges between Brown and Obama, he laughed at the fact that Obama gave Brown DVDs, hinting at the role that Hollywood has had in making the USA discourse accepted worldwide (in spite of all the wars, weapons sales and so on) through the power of entertainment.
The satire of political discourse done by Jon Stewart is a good way to remind people that they should pay less attention to words and more to facts when it comes to politics. I find it very beneficial that Stuart laughs very often at the way Obama is seducing American people with his words just like a play boy would do with a woman. Because it is important for people to ask their politicians more than beautiful words.
However, it is also important to take into account that laughing at important and delicate matters such as politics in such a light way could not be very beneficial, because it could make people accept them just as something to laugh about and not as something to take into account seriously. That is good when it comes to politicians' words, but not when it comes to important political matters which can have nasty consequences such as people dying.
In our world this is necessary as ever before, as discourse has become very powerful, because it is amplyfied by the mass media, and not very diverse, because the mass media are more and more concentrated in the hands of very few rich and powerful people. For this reason common people need more and more to be reminded of how powerful, dangerous and misleading words are. We need to be constantly reminded that words are often said by someone who would like to pursuit some private purposes, which might not be beneficial for us by the same degree.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| In Cramer We Trust | ||||
| ||||
The criticism that Jon Stewart addresses to the media industry in his program called The Daily Show is very interesting. In the episode of March 9 he criticized a financial analyst for giving false information to investors causing them to lose their money. Then he made a satirical report of the speech given by the English prime minister Gordon Brown during his visit to the USA. He laughed at him praising the USA and said a joke on him encouraging the USA to ‘invade the subcontinent’. Then he laughed at Brown copying Obama’s words in trying to imitate his discourse (and I believe Berlusconi is there trying to study the new rhetorical tricks coming from the USA to imitate them so that the Italian audiences can benefit from them too). This was a very good criticism of political discourse in general and of how politicians make use of standardized patterns of discourse that don't have anything to do with real facts just to seduce people. He said that Brown was copying Obama’s song just like a cover band would do.
Then, when talking about the gift exchanges between Brown and Obama, he laughed at the fact that Obama gave Brown DVDs, hinting at the role that Hollywood has had in making the USA discourse accepted worldwide (in spite of all the wars, weapons sales and so on) through the power of entertainment.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Brown in the USA | ||||
| ||||
The satire of political discourse done by Jon Stewart is a good way to remind people that they should pay less attention to words and more to facts when it comes to politics. I find it very beneficial that Stuart laughs very often at the way Obama is seducing American people with his words just like a play boy would do with a woman. Because it is important for people to ask their politicians more than beautiful words.
However, it is also important to take into account that laughing at important and delicate matters such as politics in such a light way could not be very beneficial, because it could make people accept them just as something to laugh about and not as something to take into account seriously. That is good when it comes to politicians' words, but not when it comes to important political matters which can have nasty consequences such as people dying.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sleepwalkers
On Saturday I went to see La Sonnambula (The Sleepwalker) by Bellini at the Metropolitan Opera. The Sicilian musician composed it in 1831 but he was inspired by a French panthomime.
That was absolutely the best thing I have ever seen in my whole life. Imagine I am coming back home after the opera and you ask me what I have seen. I would tell you that it was good but the story was a little bit strange. There is a duke. But because the setting was in our times he was dressed like a business man. One day they find a woman in his bed but she was there because she was sleepwalking. You would tell me: “What? Are you dumb or what? This is the most absurd story I have ever heard. Obviously that was an excuse invented by the guy. He fooled everyone and you too! You are such a fool!” And I would say: “But I swear I saw the girl sleepwalking on stage….Ah. Now I understand. This is why at the end all the singers were dressed like the simple people from the Swiss village that was the original setting of the opera and they were kind of playing fool and laughing at us…The duke made a fool of everyone. I understand that the simple people of a Swiss village would believe this story. But…I was fooled by the duke too!”
There are a lot of plays and novels written in France at the time that followed the revolution which were dealing with rethoric and discourse. That was because during the revolution there would be people speaking at every corner of the street, and people believing in what they were told and acting consequently. When democracy appears in a society then rhetoric follows. And artists and intellectuals of that time dealt with this issue and warned people about the dangers of rhetoric.
How many times can you see that on TV nowadays that we are submerged by discourse thanks to the media? Have you ever seen an ad that at the end tells you: “You fool, that was a joke. Obviously our products are not natural but full of preservatives. You should not believe in all of what you hear or see. Keep it in mind.”
Only once it happened on the American radio. In 1938 Orson Wells was broadcasting The War of the Worlds, a novel about an alien invasion. When people listening to the NBC program changed frequency because of an intermission they could hear the story of an alien invasion reported in the style of a news broadcast, and they panicked thinking that a real invasion was in progress. Many people think he did it on purpose, to show us how powerful media are and how foolish we are. I decided to go and hire one of his best known movies, Citizen Kane, next week because it was among the movies shown at Ramapo one month ago and I missed it. I was very curious to watch it because I have heard people comparing Berlusconi to Citizen Kane, which was a magnate of the media industry. And now I am even more interested in watching it.
That was absolutely the best thing I have ever seen in my whole life. Imagine I am coming back home after the opera and you ask me what I have seen. I would tell you that it was good but the story was a little bit strange. There is a duke. But because the setting was in our times he was dressed like a business man. One day they find a woman in his bed but she was there because she was sleepwalking. You would tell me: “What? Are you dumb or what? This is the most absurd story I have ever heard. Obviously that was an excuse invented by the guy. He fooled everyone and you too! You are such a fool!” And I would say: “But I swear I saw the girl sleepwalking on stage….Ah. Now I understand. This is why at the end all the singers were dressed like the simple people from the Swiss village that was the original setting of the opera and they were kind of playing fool and laughing at us…The duke made a fool of everyone. I understand that the simple people of a Swiss village would believe this story. But…I was fooled by the duke too!”
There are a lot of plays and novels written in France at the time that followed the revolution which were dealing with rethoric and discourse. That was because during the revolution there would be people speaking at every corner of the street, and people believing in what they were told and acting consequently. When democracy appears in a society then rhetoric follows. And artists and intellectuals of that time dealt with this issue and warned people about the dangers of rhetoric.
How many times can you see that on TV nowadays that we are submerged by discourse thanks to the media? Have you ever seen an ad that at the end tells you: “You fool, that was a joke. Obviously our products are not natural but full of preservatives. You should not believe in all of what you hear or see. Keep it in mind.”
Only once it happened on the American radio. In 1938 Orson Wells was broadcasting The War of the Worlds, a novel about an alien invasion. When people listening to the NBC program changed frequency because of an intermission they could hear the story of an alien invasion reported in the style of a news broadcast, and they panicked thinking that a real invasion was in progress. Many people think he did it on purpose, to show us how powerful media are and how foolish we are. I decided to go and hire one of his best known movies, Citizen Kane, next week because it was among the movies shown at Ramapo one month ago and I missed it. I was very curious to watch it because I have heard people comparing Berlusconi to Citizen Kane, which was a magnate of the media industry. And now I am even more interested in watching it.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
Viva Zapatero
It seems that the best solution for the media has been found in Spain.
The problem with the Italian public television was that it was controlled by the politicians. So once Berlusconi was elected because he had brainwashed Italian people onhis private televisions, he started abusing the power he had as a politician on the public television too. Suing people knowing that the law would prove him wrong, but just as a kind of psychological threat. Convincing people on his private channels and newspapers that he was right. And most of all either bribing or threatening, by means of his money and influence, the opposition that would support him both in parliament and in the public television commitees.
The Spanish prime minister Zapatero passed a law some years ago that made public television completely independent from the politicians.
As they say in this documentary, called Viva Zapatero, when the regime falls in Italy and the public television would not be just like another of Berlusconi's private ones, this could be the right idea.
I believe that this could be a way to guarantee a freedom of expression which is real and not just apparent. A television which is not only public but not under the influence if the politicians. And this could lead also to a better democracy, where common people are well informed and able to request from politicians that their needs, freedoms and rights are taken into account as well as those of the rich ones. Because this is what democracy is.
Probably before blaming discourse, (spaking for your own purposes) which is something quite natural, we should blame just the monopoly of discourse and the restricted access to knowledge it causes for those who are excluded from it. The monopoly of rich people who own the private media or of politicians who control the public ones. When many opinions, all being equally really able to be heard, one is really forced to check the facts to know the truth.
The problem with the Italian public television was that it was controlled by the politicians. So once Berlusconi was elected because he had brainwashed Italian people onhis private televisions, he started abusing the power he had as a politician on the public television too. Suing people knowing that the law would prove him wrong, but just as a kind of psychological threat. Convincing people on his private channels and newspapers that he was right. And most of all either bribing or threatening, by means of his money and influence, the opposition that would support him both in parliament and in the public television commitees.
The Spanish prime minister Zapatero passed a law some years ago that made public television completely independent from the politicians.
As they say in this documentary, called Viva Zapatero, when the regime falls in Italy and the public television would not be just like another of Berlusconi's private ones, this could be the right idea.
I believe that this could be a way to guarantee a freedom of expression which is real and not just apparent. A television which is not only public but not under the influence if the politicians. And this could lead also to a better democracy, where common people are well informed and able to request from politicians that their needs, freedoms and rights are taken into account as well as those of the rich ones. Because this is what democracy is.
Probably before blaming discourse, (spaking for your own purposes) which is something quite natural, we should blame just the monopoly of discourse and the restricted access to knowledge it causes for those who are excluded from it. The monopoly of rich people who own the private media or of politicians who control the public ones. When many opinions, all being equally really able to be heard, one is really forced to check the facts to know the truth.
On freedom again
Yesterday my Chinese flat-mate experienced how freedom, the freedom we believe in, in all its multiple forms, could lead to very nasty consequences. She had ordered a laptop on the internet because here in the States they are very cheap compared to China. She was very happy she had done a real bargain when she realized that the thing in question had been shipped straight away from China. She turned furious.
And we had a very free speech on how unfair all that is going on in her country is.
The problem is that China is a communist country. And what happens in China is that the big American companies go there and hire people who work night and day for a very little wage that is just enough to live. Then they sell some of the products they produce to a very low price in the States because there people don’t want to buy laptops when they are too expensive. But the biggest amount of the products are sold in China itself, the biggest market in the world, for a very high price. And both the American and Chinese government agree on that.
I was a little bit shocked, first because I thought they did not like each others so they could not agree on anything. Secondly because I was not familiar with this meaning of the word communist because it means something else in Italy. In Italy it means ‘anyone who opposes Berlusconi’.
I suggested that she should express her dissent and call CNN or Fox news to tell them to say such kind of things on the news. She did it but they answered that they were free to say whatever they wanted because they were private channels. Because of the freedom of the media companies. And no journalist would take her case into serious account being afraid to get fired. So she called the Chinese TV and asked them to talk about it. But they did not want to because in China people are not allowed free speech. I told her that this was free market, the kind of market that guarantees all kind of freedoms, including the freedom of Chinese people not to accept such an exploiting job and starve because ‘We’ll find someone else who is so desperate to do it anyway’.
And we had a very free speech on how unfair all that is going on in her country is.
The problem is that China is a communist country. And what happens in China is that the big American companies go there and hire people who work night and day for a very little wage that is just enough to live. Then they sell some of the products they produce to a very low price in the States because there people don’t want to buy laptops when they are too expensive. But the biggest amount of the products are sold in China itself, the biggest market in the world, for a very high price. And both the American and Chinese government agree on that.
I was a little bit shocked, first because I thought they did not like each others so they could not agree on anything. Secondly because I was not familiar with this meaning of the word communist because it means something else in Italy. In Italy it means ‘anyone who opposes Berlusconi’.
I suggested that she should express her dissent and call CNN or Fox news to tell them to say such kind of things on the news. She did it but they answered that they were free to say whatever they wanted because they were private channels. Because of the freedom of the media companies. And no journalist would take her case into serious account being afraid to get fired. So she called the Chinese TV and asked them to talk about it. But they did not want to because in China people are not allowed free speech. I told her that this was free market, the kind of market that guarantees all kind of freedoms, including the freedom of Chinese people not to accept such an exploiting job and starve because ‘We’ll find someone else who is so desperate to do it anyway’.
No different opinions around: people get mad
What are the consequences of the fact that in Italy every TV channel says the same things and no TV channels says that the Prime Minister controls the media? People believe that saying that Berlusconi owns the media is something bad. Something evident but that it cannot be said. They think they are not allowed to say it. But there is freedom of speech in the country. But people don’t believe it anymore. Now they are convinced there is not freedom of expression. Soon they will be convinced there is no freedom of thought…and without thinking twice we will vote for him again.
Not mentioned by the media
A nasty consequence of a very beautiful word such as free market is being free to sell whatever you want. Apart from drugs, because they could kill people.
On the February 6 2009 issue of the Fpif (Foreign Politics in Focus), an on-line Think thank on USA foreign politics (that I have been addressed to during another class I am attending at Ramapo), I have read an article on USA weapons sales. I wondered how many people know about it. Since it is a very important matter for the nation, people should be aware of it. But why, then, I have never heard any comment on it on TV or the papers. Not even last weekend when the president presented the budget to the public and raised again, like every year, the tax payers money destined to military expenditure, under the name of ‘defense’ expenditure? People should know how the government spend their money. Or maybe this is so obvious that it is not even needed to be mentioned in the news? When I read the article I remembered I already had heard about it from a book I studied at university for an exam of contemporary history. But then, because nobody has never mentioned it again to me, I kind of removed it from my mind.
“The Pentagon announced last October a deal for the sale of $6.5 billion in arms to Taiwan, including 30 Apache attack helicopters, 330 Patriot missiles, and 32 Harpoon missiles.
The Taiwan sale is but one of hundreds of deals the Bush administration made in its two terms. In 2008, as in each of the previous seven years, the United States led the world in arms sales at $32 billion. In 2006-2007, the U.S. sold weapons to more than 170 nations, up from 123 at the start of the Bush administration. These arms deals are supposed to accomplish a range of foreign policy goals: winning influence, gaining access, maintaining and encouraging friendly regimes, as well as bolstering the U.S. balance of payments and domestic economy. At the same time, these large-scale weapons sales prop up teetering regimes and dictatorships, sow discord, promote violent solutions to international problems, and result in widespread civilian suffering. In fact, U.S. weapons "played a role in 20 of the world's 27 major wars in 2006-07," according to a December 2008, report from the New American Foundation. Weapons from the United States are now present in half of the major armed conflicts currently taking place worldwide. And 13 of the 25 leading U.S. clients were either undemocratic and/or guilty of human rights violations, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Korea, Kuwait, Egypt, and Colombia.”
Senator Joseph Biden complained in 1982. "We had close to $30 billion worth of the most sophisticated arms in the world in Iran." And yet, "without a shot being fired, the Shah was marched out of the country." Now, "all those weapons are either lying dormant or have become accessible to the Soviet Union." Indeed, massive arms sales proved better instruments for dealing with balance of payments problems than for charting a sustainable foreign policy.
Though the years immediately after the end of the Cold War brought a sharp decline in arms sales, this trend was soon reversed. Within a few short years arms-makers adapted, and the administration of Bill Clinton obliged with aggressive marketing and massive subsidies. Presidential Decision Directive 34, issued in February 1995, articulated the new strategy of promotion of arms sales: "the United States continues to view transfers of conventional arms as a legitimate instrument of U.S. foreign policy — deserving U.S. government support — when they enable us to help friends and allies deter aggression, promote regional security, and increase interoperability of U.S. forces and allied forces." Both directly and indirectly, neoliberalism and globalization of the post-Cold War decade were very good to arms exporters.
Building on this trend — and spurred by the events of 9/11 — the Bush administration took arms exports to a new level.
James Carter, "Obama: Cut Arms Exports," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 6, 2009).
I was wondering why these facts are not in the news every day if they are so an important for the foreign policy of the country? What do you think? They should be forced to mention such kind of things? No, they are actually free not do mention such things. Why bother? It is disturbing. This is not what people want to hear. But they are the one who pay for it. Shouln't they know what they pay tax for?
Why the government does not mention this too much? When they do they call it defense. The government could tell the tax payers whose money are used to build these arms: “Listen, we are investing your money. These sales are beneficial for the economy and you will benefit of them too.” Why not? Probably because the government is aware that building an economy on selling weapons (as their primary use id that of killing people) is immoral.
They don't mention it also because making this public by talking about it on TV every day could lead American people to protest and say that they don’t want to invest their money in such kind of business sector. Some of them would say that they prefer to invest in something that does not kill people, even if it is less profitable. I believe many American people would do so. If reminded constantly on TV they would do it. But if reminded just once they would forget about it the day after like I did.
Some people could think that this is a result of the unstoppable flow of progress. And this is just another way to say that they find it OK as they think they could be benefit from it too. But are we really sure that the fact that the rich companies in a country become richer means that everyone becomes richer?
It is a little bit like in Italy. Some people voted for Berlusconi (including myself, and twice as far as I remember) because they thought that if its companies were getting rich the country would benefit from it too. To be honest nothing of the kind has happened so far. Not at all. People still get the same wages. Where are these money? So could it be that the ones who benefit from these sales in the USA are most of all big companies? What is the relationship between these big companies and people in power? How do they convince them in investing money in their business? Threatening them? Like it happens in Italy?
Other people would not want it to be said. Because it harms the reputation of the nation abroad. But this is even more immoral, isn’t it?
I really share the hope of the author of the article that things are going to change. And I believe that yes, they can. Especially as the Vice president seemed to oppose such kind of things. But people should say something to convince the government on such a matter. Otherwise the government could think that people are not concerned by this at all. But who should tell people if both the government and the press are free not to do it?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Post n. 7 (of my own choice) Italian TV 150 years ago
Opera: how Italian TV has changed in just 150 years
Yesterday I felt I needed to confront with a different point of view on the world so I decided to… dress up and go to the Opera. To relax and indulge in a very posh activity I went to see… Il Trovatore by Verdi.
I am absolutely amazed by how they did not censor it at that time. Probably it was not considered too subversive. Probably thanks to Berlusconi our idea of subversive has changed. Nowadays Berlusconi would censor it straight away. And fire Verdi with recorded delivery mail. But that were other times. When people were allowed to criticize people in power. Even though there was a monarchy. And they were in a much better mental health than Italian people at the moment.
The reason why people in power would tolerate Verdi’s opera is that at that time the Sabaudian kingdom was trying to unite Italy under its power and send away the Austrians who were occupying the north-east. Nabucco would incite Italian people to get their land back, just as the Israelites in the Bible. But Verdi wrote much more than that.
Both in Rigoletto and Il Trovatore the role of the artist is discussed in his relationship with power. In Rigoletto the artist who serves power is finally betrayed by his master in the most awful way: he seduces, abandons and kill his daughter (a symbol of his artistic work). In Il Trovatore the artist fights against power. Takes away from the Count the woman he wants (to symbolize that he is taking away his art and stating its autonomy from the dominant discourse) and gets all the public support for his fight. Until he dies. And we find out that he was the Count’s brother. Just to make clear that the guerrilla man is nothing but the brother of the powerful man. It is just by a matter of chance that he is in that position. Because he was brought up in a different place.
In Rigoletto it is amazing how Verdi criticizes the discourse of the powerful nobleman and play-boy: when he repeatedly sings the famous aria ‘La donna è mobile’ (Women are easy) after seducing and abandoning many women, including Rigoletto’s daughter, people in the audience really hate him. What he says really does not match with what is going on. He can convince poor women to fall in love with him with his words but he won’t convince the audience to approve his behavior by saying that it is women’s fault. Because it is them who are easy. Here we find again the discourse of seduction by the play-boy to symbolize and criticize political discourse. And you go away not being able to remove from your mind that song, ‘La donna è mobile’, as a warning to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician speak.
I must thank Professor D’Angelo, who is in charge of the Italian Department at Ramapo College, for making me get to know opera. She took us visiting scholars and a bunch of students to see Madame Butterfly last November. One of the many cases of poor women seduced and abandoned. And that made me understand how much I like opera. W Verdi!
Yesterday I felt I needed to confront with a different point of view on the world so I decided to… dress up and go to the Opera. To relax and indulge in a very posh activity I went to see… Il Trovatore by Verdi.
I am absolutely amazed by how they did not censor it at that time. Probably it was not considered too subversive. Probably thanks to Berlusconi our idea of subversive has changed. Nowadays Berlusconi would censor it straight away. And fire Verdi with recorded delivery mail. But that were other times. When people were allowed to criticize people in power. Even though there was a monarchy. And they were in a much better mental health than Italian people at the moment.
The reason why people in power would tolerate Verdi’s opera is that at that time the Sabaudian kingdom was trying to unite Italy under its power and send away the Austrians who were occupying the north-east. Nabucco would incite Italian people to get their land back, just as the Israelites in the Bible. But Verdi wrote much more than that.
Both in Rigoletto and Il Trovatore the role of the artist is discussed in his relationship with power. In Rigoletto the artist who serves power is finally betrayed by his master in the most awful way: he seduces, abandons and kill his daughter (a symbol of his artistic work). In Il Trovatore the artist fights against power. Takes away from the Count the woman he wants (to symbolize that he is taking away his art and stating its autonomy from the dominant discourse) and gets all the public support for his fight. Until he dies. And we find out that he was the Count’s brother. Just to make clear that the guerrilla man is nothing but the brother of the powerful man. It is just by a matter of chance that he is in that position. Because he was brought up in a different place.
In Rigoletto it is amazing how Verdi criticizes the discourse of the powerful nobleman and play-boy: when he repeatedly sings the famous aria ‘La donna è mobile’ (Women are easy) after seducing and abandoning many women, including Rigoletto’s daughter, people in the audience really hate him. What he says really does not match with what is going on. He can convince poor women to fall in love with him with his words but he won’t convince the audience to approve his behavior by saying that it is women’s fault. Because it is them who are easy. Here we find again the discourse of seduction by the play-boy to symbolize and criticize political discourse. And you go away not being able to remove from your mind that song, ‘La donna è mobile’, as a warning to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician speak.
I must thank Professor D’Angelo, who is in charge of the Italian Department at Ramapo College, for making me get to know opera. She took us visiting scholars and a bunch of students to see Madame Butterfly last November. One of the many cases of poor women seduced and abandoned. And that made me understand how much I like opera. W Verdi!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Post n. 6 CNN and Fox News
In my opinion both CNN and Fox news are partisan because they are private channels. No journalist would ever say something that goes against the interests of the companies that financially support the channel he or she works for.
In Italy there are three private channels owned by Berlusconi, who is the person who has got all the economical power in Italy. No one has ever heard of a journalist that said something against him on his own channels. They know very well they are going to be fired if they do so.
The journalists who were sued by Berlusconi were working for the public television and, thus, they could not supposedly be fired by anyone. But Berlusconi sued them and send them away unlawfully. Even though the judges sentenced that they had to be restored in their work place they weren’t because Berlusconi treated public television as if it was private once he was elected. And nobody, including me, wondered how it could have happened.
CNN is known as being liberal, whereas Fox News is republican. Both of them are private channels. I don’t know which one I like the most. At least an average person could tell immediately that the very strong critiques that Fox News journalist make are partisan. In Italy Berlusconi copied the idea and called it TG4. And he also copied the idea of CNN which is called TG5, which was meant to look objective. But because he could sack the journalists who worked for both of them, they can be considered partisan. However, because TG5 looks objective it is even more manipulative than TG4.
I believe that any time journalists can be fired as they work for a private channel, then the channel they work for is partisan. This guarantees only an apparent freedom of information, which is based on self-censorship. They will never say something that goes against the interests of the big companies that control the channel.
On the contrary, a public television is usually under the control of the politicians. For this reason it should allow the expression of different opinions. However the problem in Italy is that economical forces have became so powerful to control the whole political scene. Now that Berlusconi is in power, also the public TVs are controlled by him, and because there is no real opposition, as the economical power of Berlusconi guarantees him a general support from the politicians, the members of the opposition who work for the public TVs are not opposing him. Even when he was not in power his money guaranteed him control.
In Italy there are three private channels owned by Berlusconi, who is the person who has got all the economical power in Italy. No one has ever heard of a journalist that said something against him on his own channels. They know very well they are going to be fired if they do so.
The journalists who were sued by Berlusconi were working for the public television and, thus, they could not supposedly be fired by anyone. But Berlusconi sued them and send them away unlawfully. Even though the judges sentenced that they had to be restored in their work place they weren’t because Berlusconi treated public television as if it was private once he was elected. And nobody, including me, wondered how it could have happened.
CNN is known as being liberal, whereas Fox News is republican. Both of them are private channels. I don’t know which one I like the most. At least an average person could tell immediately that the very strong critiques that Fox News journalist make are partisan. In Italy Berlusconi copied the idea and called it TG4. And he also copied the idea of CNN which is called TG5, which was meant to look objective. But because he could sack the journalists who worked for both of them, they can be considered partisan. However, because TG5 looks objective it is even more manipulative than TG4.
I believe that any time journalists can be fired as they work for a private channel, then the channel they work for is partisan. This guarantees only an apparent freedom of information, which is based on self-censorship. They will never say something that goes against the interests of the big companies that control the channel.
On the contrary, a public television is usually under the control of the politicians. For this reason it should allow the expression of different opinions. However the problem in Italy is that economical forces have became so powerful to control the whole political scene. Now that Berlusconi is in power, also the public TVs are controlled by him, and because there is no real opposition, as the economical power of Berlusconi guarantees him a general support from the politicians, the members of the opposition who work for the public TVs are not opposing him. Even when he was not in power his money guaranteed him control.
post. 5 (of my own choice)
This afternoon I went to see the Kite Runner at the Sharp Theatre at Ramapo College.
Before starting they asked us if we have ever had a secret that we did not tell anyone. Well, yes. And I am going to tell it in this post, which is going to be very personal. In a way it does not have anything to do with media. In another way it does.
Last week I was preparing a lesson for my Italian course about Italian art. And I was thinking about what I should tell the students. I tried to remember what I had learned about it when I went to school. I remember writing many essays on Reinassance art, which would be my favourite ever. Florence, such beautiful paintings and statues...And I got very high grades. On the book it said that this kind of art was expression of the ideals of Reinassance, that the rich merchants would pay many artists and architects to represent their vision of the world. This vision would be the following: man is at the centre of universe, he can do whatever he wants with nature, he should leave behind any moral ties and do like Machiavelli's Prince, dominate fortune with intelligence and wit.
I was charmed: I thought that if this ideals were behind this beautiful kind of art they must be good. I remember believing in them, writing tons of essays praising this kind of art and these ideals.
I was just preparing a power point on that when I suddently stopped. Only when you have to teach someone you really take responsibility of what you think.
I thought: this is complete ****: can I tell my students 'Look at these beautifil paintings, these are paid by rich merchants who believed they could have no moral ties and control nature as they wanted, without even thinking about the consequences of what they were doing? This is what our society believes in now. This is what we have on TV. They don't need me to teach it to them.
At first I felt very ashamed of what I had written in all those essays. I thought I was clever instead I am just a stupid ass. Then I tought of Dante. He was 35 when he found himself in a dark wood and had to confront with three beasts: greed, power and lust. I am just 27. I am still in time. But then I thought that when I was a child I used to have very high morals. Every child could tell you that lying is not fair, stealing is not fair, that you should think about the consequences of what you do. If my lessons have to be biased at least they should teach these kind of things. Those things that any 10 year-old child would think of as pretty obvious.
This afternoon I went to see the Kite Runner. And I think many people in the audience felt like Dante when he started his moral journey. They were crying and they all called it a life changing experience. Too bad that they were all 85 on average (no student there, even though it was free for students).
The story is the following: there are two children in Afganistan in the 1970. When the country was quite peaceful. Before something happened that I don't know and I should look up tonight.
There is a poor child and a rich child. The story is not that the poor child steals something and because he was poor we could justify it. The story was clear. There was a rich child, who used to read a lot. And a poor child. They were playing together and the poor child would defend the rich child. But one day that the bad children take the poor child and get revenge of him defending the rich child, the rich child was there. At that point he wss facing a moral dilemma. He knews very well what was going on but he pretended not to see and ran away. After that day the rich child was tormented by having known and not having done anything and started being nasty with the poor guy. He even accused him to have stolen his watch while he had hidden it under his bed. And the poor guy, very ignorant but with very high moral standards, said 'Yes, I stole it' not to make the rich guy be in trouble with his father. A very good metaphor of our world today. People knowing, because we do. It is clear as the sunlight. But not caring.
I feel so ashamed now for what I wrote in those essays. This is the secret I could not keep for myself. But at least I know now, before 'teaching' stipid things to my students.
Before starting they asked us if we have ever had a secret that we did not tell anyone. Well, yes. And I am going to tell it in this post, which is going to be very personal. In a way it does not have anything to do with media. In another way it does.
Last week I was preparing a lesson for my Italian course about Italian art. And I was thinking about what I should tell the students. I tried to remember what I had learned about it when I went to school. I remember writing many essays on Reinassance art, which would be my favourite ever. Florence, such beautiful paintings and statues...And I got very high grades. On the book it said that this kind of art was expression of the ideals of Reinassance, that the rich merchants would pay many artists and architects to represent their vision of the world. This vision would be the following: man is at the centre of universe, he can do whatever he wants with nature, he should leave behind any moral ties and do like Machiavelli's Prince, dominate fortune with intelligence and wit.
I was charmed: I thought that if this ideals were behind this beautiful kind of art they must be good. I remember believing in them, writing tons of essays praising this kind of art and these ideals.
I was just preparing a power point on that when I suddently stopped. Only when you have to teach someone you really take responsibility of what you think.
I thought: this is complete ****: can I tell my students 'Look at these beautifil paintings, these are paid by rich merchants who believed they could have no moral ties and control nature as they wanted, without even thinking about the consequences of what they were doing? This is what our society believes in now. This is what we have on TV. They don't need me to teach it to them.
At first I felt very ashamed of what I had written in all those essays. I thought I was clever instead I am just a stupid ass. Then I tought of Dante. He was 35 when he found himself in a dark wood and had to confront with three beasts: greed, power and lust. I am just 27. I am still in time. But then I thought that when I was a child I used to have very high morals. Every child could tell you that lying is not fair, stealing is not fair, that you should think about the consequences of what you do. If my lessons have to be biased at least they should teach these kind of things. Those things that any 10 year-old child would think of as pretty obvious.
This afternoon I went to see the Kite Runner. And I think many people in the audience felt like Dante when he started his moral journey. They were crying and they all called it a life changing experience. Too bad that they were all 85 on average (no student there, even though it was free for students).
The story is the following: there are two children in Afganistan in the 1970. When the country was quite peaceful. Before something happened that I don't know and I should look up tonight.
There is a poor child and a rich child. The story is not that the poor child steals something and because he was poor we could justify it. The story was clear. There was a rich child, who used to read a lot. And a poor child. They were playing together and the poor child would defend the rich child. But one day that the bad children take the poor child and get revenge of him defending the rich child, the rich child was there. At that point he wss facing a moral dilemma. He knews very well what was going on but he pretended not to see and ran away. After that day the rich child was tormented by having known and not having done anything and started being nasty with the poor guy. He even accused him to have stolen his watch while he had hidden it under his bed. And the poor guy, very ignorant but with very high moral standards, said 'Yes, I stole it' not to make the rich guy be in trouble with his father. A very good metaphor of our world today. People knowing, because we do. It is clear as the sunlight. But not caring.
I feel so ashamed now for what I wrote in those essays. This is the secret I could not keep for myself. But at least I know now, before 'teaching' stipid things to my students.
Post n. 4 (of my own choice)
Yesterday night I went to see the play Othello by Shakespeare in New York. That is a great tragedy of 'discourse'. Shakespeare did talk about it centuries before the modern linguists.
Discourse is the way language can be used to contruct thoughts and ideologies that support the interests of specific groups and have a direct effect on the world. Language can indeed affect the world. Expecially nowadays, when we are exposed to language on a large scale because of the media and TV.
In the play Iago was speaking all the time and he was using all the time what linguistist call presuppositions. He did not tell Othello: "Listen, since you are black your wife is cheating on you with a white guy". That would sound suspicious. Othello would wonder what was the purpose of Iago saying that. On the contrary, Iago was insinuating things all the time, and Othello was making his own inferences, making his own logical links among the various disconnected sentences. And little by little in his mind would grow the idea that black is bad and women are bad.
This is how certain ideas are installed in people's mind and become common sense. People start thinking that it is natural and obvious to think so. Their mind made very logical connections. But they were not aware of the fact that they were being manipulated by someone pursuing very specific purposes meant to make his own interest. While watching the play one would like to shout at Othello: "Why don't you ask yourself the reasons why Iago is saying all these things, what his purpose could be? He is making an effort in speaking so much that he must have a reason to do so!" And then : "Why don't you go and ask other people's opinions? Why don't you make sure that those words reflect the real situation? Why do you trust words so much?"
And this is what happened in Italy with Fascism, as shown in the video. People were reading newspapers and listening to political speeches that all said the same things, without questioning. And once certain things had become normal in their minds, then they were unable to question anything anymore. Even what was clearly unacceptable.
And they became like the woman in the movie The Reader who did not think twice before burning alive about one hundred Jews in a church because in her society that was considered as perfectly normal.
The point of the movie was that the fact that she could not read was the cause of her doing so. But what should she have read? We've just said that most of the things written on newspapers would support these practices, and thus be the cause of her behaviour...
She should have read Shakespeare, Flaubert, Moliere, Dante, Voltaire and all those writers who did not write to make pople accept the dominant ideology, but who did write to make people think about it, to give them a different opinion.
Many of them used satire or metaphors because they would not be allowed to speak freely, and they used presuppositions to share with us their views. Did they want to manipulate people? For what purpose? They had no interest in doing so. They did not receive money from those who had economical or political power, they were censored by them.
They did not want to convince people of their ideas, they just wanted to tell them: "Hey, here you have an idea which is different from the dominant one. Are you sure that what people in power say is true? Why don't you check it?"
Many great writers talked about the power of language and of discourse a lot in their books, to make people aware of their powerful effect. They used language to expose the dangers of language.
Discourse is the way language can be used to contruct thoughts and ideologies that support the interests of specific groups and have a direct effect on the world. Language can indeed affect the world. Expecially nowadays, when we are exposed to language on a large scale because of the media and TV.
In the play Iago was speaking all the time and he was using all the time what linguistist call presuppositions. He did not tell Othello: "Listen, since you are black your wife is cheating on you with a white guy". That would sound suspicious. Othello would wonder what was the purpose of Iago saying that. On the contrary, Iago was insinuating things all the time, and Othello was making his own inferences, making his own logical links among the various disconnected sentences. And little by little in his mind would grow the idea that black is bad and women are bad.
This is how certain ideas are installed in people's mind and become common sense. People start thinking that it is natural and obvious to think so. Their mind made very logical connections. But they were not aware of the fact that they were being manipulated by someone pursuing very specific purposes meant to make his own interest. While watching the play one would like to shout at Othello: "Why don't you ask yourself the reasons why Iago is saying all these things, what his purpose could be? He is making an effort in speaking so much that he must have a reason to do so!" And then : "Why don't you go and ask other people's opinions? Why don't you make sure that those words reflect the real situation? Why do you trust words so much?"
And this is what happened in Italy with Fascism, as shown in the video. People were reading newspapers and listening to political speeches that all said the same things, without questioning. And once certain things had become normal in their minds, then they were unable to question anything anymore. Even what was clearly unacceptable.
And they became like the woman in the movie The Reader who did not think twice before burning alive about one hundred Jews in a church because in her society that was considered as perfectly normal.
The point of the movie was that the fact that she could not read was the cause of her doing so. But what should she have read? We've just said that most of the things written on newspapers would support these practices, and thus be the cause of her behaviour...
She should have read Shakespeare, Flaubert, Moliere, Dante, Voltaire and all those writers who did not write to make pople accept the dominant ideology, but who did write to make people think about it, to give them a different opinion.
Many of them used satire or metaphors because they would not be allowed to speak freely, and they used presuppositions to share with us their views. Did they want to manipulate people? For what purpose? They had no interest in doing so. They did not receive money from those who had economical or political power, they were censored by them.
They did not want to convince people of their ideas, they just wanted to tell them: "Hey, here you have an idea which is different from the dominant one. Are you sure that what people in power say is true? Why don't you check it?"
Many great writers talked about the power of language and of discourse a lot in their books, to make people aware of their powerful effect. They used language to expose the dangers of language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
