Although the speaker’s assertion has some merit when it comes to the education of young
people, I find it erroneous when it comes to higher education. The mission of our colleges and
universities is to afford students cultural perspective and a capacity for understanding
opposing viewpoints, and to encourage and nurture the skills of critical analysis and
skepticism--not to indoctrinate students with certain ideas while quashing others. Admittedly,
colleges and universities are bureaucracies and therefore not immune to political influence
over what is taught and what is not. Thus to some extent a college’s curriculum is vulnerable to
wealthy and otherwise influential benefactors, trustees, and government agencies who by
advancing the prevailing cultural agenda serve to diminish a college’s effectiveness in carrying
out its true mission. Yet, my intuition is that that such influences are minor ones, especially in
public university systems.
The speaker’s assertion is also problematic in that it ignores two significant other means by
which our culture perpetuates ideas it favors and discredits ideas it fears. One such means is
our system of laws, by which legislators and jurists formulate and then impose so-called
"public policy." Legislation and judicial decisions carry the weight of law and the threat of
punishment for those who deviate from that law. As a result, they are highly effective means of
forcing on us official notions of what is good for society and for quashing ideas that are
deemed threatening to the social fabric, and to the safety and security of the government and
the governed. A second such means is the mainstream media. By mirroring the culture’s
prevailing ideas and values, broadcast and print media serve to perpetuate them. It is
important to distinguish here between mainstream media-such as broadcast television--and
alternative media such as documentary films and non-commercial websites, whose typical
aims are to call into question the status quo, expose the hypocrisy and unfair bias behind
45
mainstream ideas, and bring to light ideas that the powers-that-be most fear. Yet, the influence
of alternative media pales in comparison to that of mainstream media.
In sum, the speaker’s assertion is not without merit when it comes to the role of grade
schools and high schools. However, the speaker over-generalizes about what students are
taught--especially at colleges and universities. Moreover, the speaker’s assertion ignores other
effective ways in which mainstream culture perpetuates its agenda.
Issue 40
"In many countries it is now possible to turn on the television and view government at work.
Watching these proceedings can help people understand the issues that affect their lives. The
more kinds of government proceedings---trials, debates, meetings, etc.---that are televised,
the more society will benefit."
I strongly agree that the more government proceedings--debates, meeting, and so
forth---that are televised, the more society will benefit overall. Nevertheless, undue emphasis
on this means of informing a constituency has the potential for harm--which any society must
take care not to allow.Access to government proceedings via television carries several significant benefits. The
main benefit lies in two useful archival functions of videotaped proceedings. First, videotapes
are valuable supplements to conventional means of record keeping. Although written
transcripts and audio tapes might provide an accurate record of what is said, only video tapes
can convey the body language and other visual clues that help us understand what people say,
whether they are being disingenuous, sarcastic, or sincere. Secondly, videotape archives
provide a useful catalogue for documentary journalists.
Televised proceedings also provide three other useful functions. First, for shut-ins and people
who live in remote regions, it might be impracticable, or even impossible, to view government
proceedings in person. Secondly, with satellite television systems it is possible to witness the
governments of other cities, states, and even nations at work. This sort of exposure provides
the viewer a valuable sense of perspective, an appreciation for other forms of government, and
so forth. Thirdly, in high schools and universities, television proceedings can be useful
curriculum supplements for students of government, public policy, law, and even public
speaking.
Nevertheless, televising more and more government proceedings carries certain risks that
should not be ignored. Watching televised government proceedings is inherently a rather
passive experience. The viewer cannot voice his or her opinions, objections, or otherwise
contribute to what is being viewed. Watching televised proceedings as a substitute for active
participation in the political process can, on a mass scale, undermine the democratic process
by way of its chilling effect on participation. Undue emphasis on tele government poses the risk
that government proceedings will become mere displays, or shows, for the public, intended as
public relations ploys and so-called "photo opportunities,’’ while the true business of
government is moved behind closed doors.
In sum, readier access to the day-day business of a government can only serve to inform
and educate. Although undue reliance on televised proceedings for information can quell
active involvement and serve as a censor for people being televised, I think these are risks
46
worth taking in the interest of disclosure.
Issue 41
"The purpose of many advertisements is to make consumers want to buy a product so that
they will ’be like’ the person in the ad. This practice is effective because it not only sells
products but also helps people feel better about themselves."
The speaker asserts that the many ads which make consumers want to "be like" the person
portrayed in the ad are effective not only in selling products but also in helping consumers feel
better about themselves. This assertion actually consists of two claims: that this advertising
technique is used effectively in selling many products, and that consumers who succumb to
this technique actually feel better about themselves as a result. While I agree with the first
claim, I strongly disagree with the second one.Turning first to the statement’s threshold claim, do many ads actually use this technique to
sell products in the first place? Consider ads like the wildly popular Budweiser commercial
featuring talking frogs. There’s nothing in that ad to emulate; its purpose is merely to call
attention to itself. Notwithstanding this type of ad, in my observation the majority of ads provide
some sort of model that most consumers in the target market would want to emulate, or "be
like." While some ads actually portray people who are the opposite of what the viewer would
want to "be like," these ads invariably convey the explicit message that to avoid being like the
person in the ad the consumer must buy the advertised product. As for whether the many,
many ads portraying models are effective in selling products, I am not privy to the sort of
statistical information required to answer this question with complete certainty. However, my
intuition is that this technique does help sell products; otherwise, advertisers would not use it
so persistently.
Turning next to the statement’s ultimate claim that these ads are effective because they help
people who buy the advertised products feel better about themselves, I find this claim to be
specious. Consumers lured by the hope of "being like" the person in an ad might experience
some initial measure of satisfaction in the form of an ego boost. We have all experienced a
certain optimism immediately after acquiring something we’ve wanted a good feeling that
we’re one step closer to becoming who we want to be. However, in my experience this sense
of optimism is ephemeral, invariably giving way to disappointment that the purchase did not
live up to its implicit promise.
One informative example of this false hope involves the dizzying array of diet aids, skin
creams, and fitness machines available today. The people in ads for these products are
youthful, fit, and attractive what we all want to "be like." And the ads are effective in selling
these products; today’s health-and-beauty market feeds a multi-billion dollar industry. But the
end result for the consumer is an unhealthy preoccupation with physical appearance and
youth, which often leads to low self-esteem, eating disorders, injuries from over-exercise, and
so forth. And these problems are sure signs of consumers who feel worse, not better, about
themselves as a result of having relied on the false hope that they will "be like" the model in the
ad.
Another informative example involves products that pander to our desire for socioeco-nomic
status. Ads for luxury cars and upscale dothing typically portray people with lucrative careers
47
living in exclusive neighborhoods. Yet, I would wager that no person whose life-style actually
resembles these portrayals could honestly claim that purchasing certain consumer products
contributed one iota to his or her socioeconomic success. The end result for the consumer is
envy of others that can afford even more expensive possessions, and ultimately low
self-esteem based on feelings of socioeconomic inadequacy.
In sum, while ads portraying people we want to "be like" are undoubtedly effective in selling
products, they are equally ineffective in helping consumers feel better about themselves. In
fact, the result is a sense of false hope, leading ultimately to disappointment and a sense of
failure and inadequacy--in other words, feeling worse about ourselves.
Issue 42
"When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we
can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring
history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are
storytellers."