Anthropology 295: Anthropology of Media

While doing research for the final essay on Net Neutrality I came across a story at the American Civil Liberties Union about racial profiling. Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi living in America, was wearing a t-shirt on which was written “we will not be silent” in Arabic and in English. He was prevented from going on the airplane because airline officials saw it as threatening. He was told that he would not be allowed on the plane if he were wearing this shirt. His ticket was then ripped up and his seat was moved to the back of the plane. This issue brings up an interesting point about the role of the media and about racial profiling.
To give some credit to the airline workers and officials, since 9/11 issues concerning “security” and “safety” have become so distorted it is probably hard for them to know how they are supposed to act in such a situation. When you work in a place where a water bottle is considered threatening, who really can have a good grasp on reality? Never mind sharp objects, today a water bottle is the new tweezers. And when you are constantly affronted by the phrase “If you see something, say something” on every possible flat object or electric screen, this t-shirt would naturally be “something” about which to “say something.” So it all makes sense in such a confused climate that an Arabic man wearing such a t-shirt would warrant some alarm by airport-goers.
But on the other hand, we must give credit to the Iraqi foreigner, Raed Jarrar, for giving us a fresh perspective on some important American fundamentals we seem to have forgotten in the storm of mixed messages we’ve been receiving lately in the form of safety precautions. Iraq is a country whose people are still fighting for individual rights. Naturally Mr. Jarrar, a newcomer to America, place of freedom of expression, has an appreciation and grasp of his rights that likely surpasses that of most Americans. He has filed suit against Jet Blue and the government for racial profiling and against the government for censoring his right to free speech. This issue comes down to free speech and the atmosphere that has been created as a measure of security that has made many afraid to express their views. As Mr. Jarrar said, “I think it’s important for the US that we fight to wear the T-shirt with the Arabic words on it, maybe by itself it doesn’t seem significant…But believe me the hugest disasters start by little, little, small steps like this. People give away their rights very slowly. Thinking that this is patriotic, thinking that you know what I will give away some of my rights because I love my country, I’ll give away some of my rights because I hate my enemies. I will give away more of my rights because I think its important for National Security and then you end up living in a country where you can’t talk, where you can’t breathe, where you can’t do anything.”
Sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ww13jYo6Y
And American Civil Liberties Union

While paying relatively close attention to the presidential race in the past months, it is evident what a large role the media has in shaping our perceptions of reality. It has also become evident how an in-person encounter can be so powerful as compared with a media encounter.
I’m a New Hampshire voter so I was “courted” by the candidates. Obama shook my hand. And it wasn’t like I had to stick my hand way out there. After 20 minutes of hand shaking, he came back to the corner where I was standing and said; “Oh I missed you guys the first time around.” So impressive! And he is quite handsome in real life. These are just not things that any type of media could ever impart. Charm aside, I voted for Edwards based on his solid policies.
Anyway, I saw first hand how all of the hype and predictions of media actually shaped the outcome. The New Hampshire primary was just after Iowa. Obama won in Iowa and it was predicted almost unanimously by commentators that he would win in New Hampshire. All of this information swayed many voters that I spoke with to vote for Edwards because they knew he wouldn’t win and just wanted him to have the vote. And in the case of Clinton this was even more extreme. This is not to say that New Hampshire voters did not want Clinton. But based on the very confident predictions of media, many voters who might have been on the fence were swayed to vote for Clinton. It is this type of psychology that fascinates me. All of the hype actually creates an alternate reality. And in the end, when Obama may have been close to winning in New Hampshire had it not been for all of the heavy-handed commentary, Clinton won by a landslide. In this case the media becomes an interesting mechanism for not just reporting on events as they are, but for changing the actual outcome.

It has only recently begun to disturb me that I have a type of complacency and aloofness about the war that we are currently in. And it has only really come to my attention because one of my best friends wants to join the Army National Guard. How is it that we are in a war and it is something I never really have to think about? This relates to the issue of media control and government control of the media and the power of the image. Photographs can certainly lie, but the lack of photographs and images can also create the same effect of a lie in our minds. The lack of imagery coming out of Iraq is certainly a contributing factor to the pall of complacency that abounds with regard to the Iraq War. It is truly tragic that we don’t realize the full scope of just how much sway the media’s selection of stories and images has on out perception of the world. It is up to each of us individually to decide what is and is not important, but unfortunately it is not up to us which information is implanted in our consciousness for pondering in the first place.

Pharmaceuticals

In pondering overzealously prescribed pharmaceuticals it has made me see the powerful and often blinding role of collective conscience and media in our society. It has taken me a long time to come to the point where I realize that the mainstream is just that: the largest stream of information. It is not the only way to go, and it is not correct just because the majority of people follow it. We have so much trust in the media to show us what we need to know. Ill? Great, there’s an ad “that might be right for you.” In my life I have had many experiences, both personally and pertaining to those close to me, with drugs. I am not talking about heroin or crack, although many pharmaceuticals should be in the same category. I am talking about anything from manufactured antibiotics, Paxil for anxiety, acne medications, you name it. I had to take a leave from school because a single course drug I took for a tropical illness half killed me. I wish I was exaggerating. Not a word was said to me by the doctor about the composition of this substance that would so harshly alter my life. And as I have looked into the medical community, into whose hands so many people put their lives, often in vain, I have found some disturbing information. I have uncovered blogs by people who are slowly dying from medications which were supposed to save their lives, sites that feature families who have lost a loved one because a drug reacted badly with their individual body chemistry, whole forums for people whose lives have been devastated by their trust in medications they knew nothing about. But one need not search so deeply to see evidence of the industry’s casualties. Heath Ledger’s recent tragic death was an accidental overdose of a mixture of medications to treat anxiety and insomnia,. Or what about the most recent shooting at Ohio State which left six dead and many wounded? These events have one thing in common: prescription drugs gone awry. A basic understanding that many people lack is that our bodies are like a chemistry project, anything you put into it will alter it and produce some change in chemistry. How the experiment will turn out is dependant on factors that no doctor will know in the minutes they give you in their office. I have recently begun reading the China Study, which is the most comprehensively researched document on the power of nutrition for healing. In the book, the author relays that behind heart disease and cancer, the medical community itself is the third leading cause of death in the US. Thousands upon thousands of people every year are killed by “miracle drugs” and unnecessary surgeries. What is at play here is that we have entrusted our very lives to a giant corporation that makes money off of our use of these drugs. Again, I wish I were exaggerating. The solution for health care is not better coverage or easier access to meds. And the solution to accidental overdose is not a multi-million dollar ad campaign about the dangers of drugs, which is the Bush Administration’s proposed solution. The solution is, at least in part, making some painfully obvious information commonplace in the minds of Americans. Information such as appropriate diet, exercise and human companionship does not, however, make money for anyone except maybe some local farmers. As Goethe says, “We are best at hiding those things which are in plain sight.”
It is as I have relayed in many previous posts, if our country continues to declare a war on everything from Terror, to drugs, to cancer, health will not ensue. This is because what you focus on expands, and if we are in a “War on Cancer” we are not focused on health, but rather on the illness itself. Likewise, declaring a “War on Prescription Drugs” will not work until the things people are taking drugs for have a solution. Instead of bringing ourselves to a place of peace or a state of health, we, the collective unconscious, continue to focus on the struggle. And a fighter whose main focus is the struggle itself, will never be free.

A main insight that I have gained from this course is that media is highly subjective and to view it as anything else will create a deranged sense of reality. As we saw in “The Ad and the Ego” advertisement is the “production of discontent.” The film relayed to us that “symbols and images have a power of persuasion that is undeniable.” And that advertisers understand the human search for meaning and use it to their own ends.
However, this can be applied to all media beyond just ads for specific material items. How about The War on Terror? Every government transaction and public speech is an ad. Behind every public media there is an agenda. This may be for good or for evil; that is for the moral voice inside the individual to decide. But the important thing to realize and understand is that the world is boundless and full of possibilities that have not been broadcast by large corporations or “Paid for by Viewers Like You.” After returning from Brazil last summer, I became painfully aware of the confines within which we Americans live. We have become so attached to media. I don’t fully agree with McLuhen that the media is the message, but the confinement that media has brought to our perceptions about life’s possibilities does often echo the sentiments that come through those forms of media. It has created a future-based ideal. Once I am this, or once I have this, my life will be happy.
Media is essentially a tool for communication. It should not be perceived as a reflection of reality. As we discussed at the beginning of the course, media are: technologies, tools for communication, social practices, a cultural system for the social construction of reality. It is as Buddha said (or so they say),
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Please Don’t Talk About Murder While I’m Eating…This is actually the name of a Ben Harper song from his album Both Sides of the Gun. I highly recommend this album if you like good politically infused listening. I feel this way often, I’ll turn on the radio in the morning and all of a sudden I am in the Middle East surrounded by suicide bombers. Something about murder and food just doesn’t mix. I, like many people who were interviewed for Tachi’s essay Radio Texture, listen to the radio for, well, texture I suppose. There is something motivating about inviting the world into your kitchen as you are starting your day. But there is also something disconcerting about the fact that I can count on hearing about a suicide bombing incidence on NPR as surely as I can count on Garrison Keillor’s slowly drawled puns. If we want to talk about desensitization, let’s talk about the reports of violence in the Middle East. It just seems uncanny that literally everyday this is reported on. It leads me to wonder, do commentators feel that now that they have started reporting on it everyday they have to continue in a consistent manner? I have no issue with this. I just think about it often because I am affronted with it every day on NPR and not with reports of violence anywhere else. It almost leads me to a point of complacency with the situation. But this is precisely the crux of the issue. What are the effects of us expecting that this condition will continue in a steady capacity? Does this have an effect on the outcome of the situation? If reports of this violence come in a steady stream at the same time every day, won’t this embed the realities of the situation into a place in our subconscious that becomes more comfortable and less outraged?