Dialogues with Greco, "On Thought Constraint"

...and how the media perpetuates it...

Greco: Suvian, if I were to ask you to speculate on the relationship between the information that we receive and the thoughts that we are able to make as a result, how would you respond?

Suvian: That there is a definite relationship between the two.

Greco: Indeed, Suvian, there is. When you want to learn about current events, about the happenings of the world, what do you do?

Suvian: I'll pick up a newspaper, watch the news on tv, or look on-line.

Greco: What else can we do? The public relies on those sources to stay informed. But do you consider the news that we recieve to be value-free, or neutral?

Suvian: Value-free or neutral?

Greco: For example, if you are told by the media that the purpose of the U.S. government's involvement in a third world country is to democratize it, would that satisfy you, Suvian?

Suvian: Well, I might suspect that there's something fishy going on, but find it hard to put a finger on it exactly.

Greco: True enough. And why can't you put your finger on it?

Suvian: Hmm...well, I suppose because I don't have any other points of reference.

Greco: Interesting! And why don't you have any other points of reference?

Suvian: I can't say exactly...

Greco: Right...at this point, it is safe to say that you are experiencing a form of cognitive dissonance my dear Suvian. Perhaps you have reached the edge of your extant knowledge on the subject, beyond which things seem cloudy or murky. I would like to propose the following idea to you, Suvian--the reason that you don't have other points of reference is simply because they are not made available to you, or to anyone, by the mainstream media.

Suvian: (!)

Greco: I'm afraid that this brings about even more cognitive dissonance, because we are all raised to believe that the media are trustworthy, that they are endowed with integrity, that their high standards are high, and their methods thorough. And indeed, these qualities may be present to a greater or lesser degree. But I ask you to consider this--fundamentally, what are the media, Suvian?

Suvian: (coughs)...hmm...well...let's see...

Greco: The media are a business, selling a product, like all businesses must do.

Suvian: A product?

Greco: Yes, a product. The media are selling a product to their customers, which sounds normal enough, wouldn't you say?

Suvian: Yes...

Greco: But the "product" they are selling is us, the readership or viewership, while their "customers" are the advertisers on whom they depend for their revenue.

Suvian: Wait a minute. I'm getting some cogdiz here...I thought that we were the customers, buying a product, the news, from a particular source, such as CNN, The New York Times, etc.

Greco: That's one way to look at it. But if you consider who the players really are, we get a different picture of what's going on. Did you know that the illustrious New York Times gets around 75% of its revenue from advertising, for example?

Suvian: No, I didn't.

Greco: Well, here is where I want to make my point, Suvian. If a newspaper the caliber of The New York Times depends so heavily on advertisers to succeed, wouldn't it only make sense then that they must acquiesce themselves to the demands and pressures placed upon them by those advertisers?

Suvian: Yes...

Greco: And that those demands and pressures function as a kind of constraint on the information that they publish?

Suvian: How so?

Greco: Let's say that you are a vendor at a market. If your customers regularly ask for a certain kind of product, but you choose not to stock it, you will likely not do very well. The same can be said of the media and their relationship with advertisers. Increasingly, the advertisers (the customers) come from the big-business sector, and as such they are looking for certain audiences to promote their products in (i.e., a certain product). It is a matter of course that the content the media disseminate to the public will be in minimal conflict with or only superficially critical of the advertisers on whom they depend (that done in order to give the appearance that an independent and critical media actually exists), for if it were not, they could not stay in business. And this, Suvian, is one way in which thought constraints are built into the very bowels of the media itself.

Suvian: So the particular nature of the relationship between the media and advertisers inherently limits the information that the public is presented with, which may explain in part why alternative points of view about a given topic are usually lacking.

Greco: Yes. Presenting perspectives that may be damaging to advertisers and the interests they represent (i.e., big business) is a step below sacrilegious, which makes it difficult for the media to be critical, and that limits the information that the public recieves, and over time, the cognitive choices that they are able to make.

Suvian: Going back to the beginning of this conversation, this provides an example of the case that as diversity is undermined, so is democracy.

Greco: Yes. And to bring this argument to a conclusion, I would say that the relationship between the media and advertisers places limits on the ideological spectrum that is presented to the public. The public may perceive that spectrum to be natural (remember, it was once a widely held belief that the earth was flat), but that spectrum is in fact limited and framed within certain boundaries, both intentionally and unintentionally, by those with the vested interests and power to do so. Purpose? Self-preservation, which is only instinctual, after all.