The poverty of explanation
THE POVERTY OF
EXPLANATION (expanded version)
I listen to many hours of "news" on various
television stations, especially MSNBC,
and quickly realize the visual components of how content (subject matter or
topics) is treated is as important as sound elements. How questions and opinions are presented in
the name of informing the public deeply affects what we believe and what use as
guides for choices in our daily lives.
Who performs the analysis of content is crucial, because I listen more
carefully to anchor persons who suggest they are reasonably serious and
"objective" than to those who betray themselves with body language and voices, with sly
grins, choked laughter, and dramatized emotion.
Give special notice to the word "suggest" as I
use it above, because role-playing and performance are dominant in 21st-
century speech acts, assisted by the complexities of social media. Perhaps communication as always been
theatrical or dramatic in terms of its rhetorical components, even in our most
intimate moments of talking to one another.
We are governed by subjectivity and uncertainty. Emotion and ideology
cannot be excluded from efforts to deliver the news, of course, any more than
delivery can be clearly separated from interpretation and judgment. Acts of human communication comprise quilted
or knotted parts.
At present, we can depend very little on cultural
literacy among American citizens to support common understanding of public
topics. Our remoteness from shared
values about Americanness ensures that we readily misunderstand American
rhetoric, how verbal and visual gestures seek to persuade. We listen to thousands of words about
color-coded nationalism and bogus myths regarding power and Darwinian
superiority; about the swamp of politics and the cesspools of fear, hatred, and
mutual distrust; shithouse countries and sub-human immigrants; gaps between the
wealthy and the poor; the criminal
inequity of social justice, remediation of mental health issues, and punishment
for greater and lesser violations of an abstract rule of law; rampant violence
and terrorism domestic and international. Donald Trump is a far better actor
than Ronald Reagan was, because his talking and tweeting ensures that no one
can know for sure the dancer from the
dance. One could, to some degree,
discern a difference between Reagan the second-rate Hollywood actor and Reagan
the American president. Such is not the
case with Trump as he panders to his base, his anger-infested tribe. He is an
ultimate Shakespearean tragedy. He expertly applies lessons from a playbook
co-authored by Machiavelli and Hitler like a negative John the Baptist
forecasting the Revelation of St. John the Divine.
In the case of
Trump, it is doubtful that we actually
know what our ears are hearing or what our eyes are reading. And in the
commerce of the "news," it is noteworthy that a certain kind of
explanation is missing regarding Trump as an overly exposed object for analysis: why among all the experts that MSNBC and other stations give air time on legality, race, national
security and intelligence-gathering,
health crises, sexuality, ecology
and climate change do we never hear
testimony from a few people who have verifiable expertise in sociolinguistics and the
psychology of language?
Is well-informed or scholarly explanation about the
psychology and impact of language usage
too advanced for presentation to ordinary watchers of television? Would such explanation be characterized as an
act of treason? Who makes decisions about who has agency to explain? Do those who call the shots about what is to
be seen and heard on news programs have sinister motives for limiting the
breadth of explanation by excluding the findings of linguistics? Are they held hostage by lobbies? Do they have any legitimate reasons for making
the televised news a kind of Platonic cave for the American public? Do domestic and foreign cartels , using all
the resources of digital technologies, have a vested interest in keeping the
American public virtually confused and dumb?
I watch. I wonder. I worry.
I wonder if in-depth explanation about the functions of
language constitutes a threat to
national security and love of country. I
worry that commerce in racialized, anti-human stereotypes might be the
centerpiece and hub for American futures. An accidental trinity of Karl Marx, Carl Jung,
and Karl Popper provides some hate-group clues about the poverty of explanation which
characterizes and undermines the truth-value of the televised "news." I watch the birthing of American Armageddon.
Jerry W. Ward, Jr. August 10, 2019
Comments
Post a Comment