How Media Select and Deflect Reality

In Language as Symbolic Action Kenneth Burke writes, "“Men seek for vocabularies that are reflections of reality. To this end, they must develop vocabularies that are selections of reality. And any selection of reality must, in certain circumstances, function as a deflection of reality.” 


Common examples of this principle are the many words the Inuits have for snow, or the way language death also means the death of ideas and concepts which originated within that language system. I experienced it myself when a Chinese girl opened my eyes by saying, "Oh you white people, you all look the same." Because of my limited experiences before that time with Asian people, my version of reality would sooner have stated the opposite. I would justify that by saying that white people have more variation in hair color, eye color, etc. but she would probably tell me that white people do not have the same variation in eye-shape or skin tones. The important thing is that we realize that neither systems are a perfect selection of reality. It is not that I was right and she was wrong. Rather, the claim that "all ---- look alike" is true depending on the criteria we look for. Thus, our different systems are made up of selections of reality. These selections decide what is relevant or not, and in extreme cases may make us "color-blind" so we do not see distinctions unless they are important to our system of thought.

In the same way, it is important that we realize that what is presented as "the news" is not giving us all significant world events happening. Rather, it is a reflection of the selections they have made of a vast amount of events and stories. These selections simultaneously deflect events which may be of much greater importance.

For example, the single most covered event in the US the last couple of weeks was the trial of Casey Anthony, a mother accused of murdering her little girl.


At the same time the United Nations has warned that over 10 million people in Kenya and Somalia are in a state of emergency because of one of the greatest droughts since the 1950s (http://www.quietway.org/current-drought-emergency-in-kenya/).

Personally, I don't think there can be any question morally or logically which of these issues deserves the greater media attention. Yet the selections of media coverage are not determined by logic or morals. Media coverage is driven by ratings, and mostly they follow wherever the ratings go. Meanwhile over 10 million people in need are deflected and forgotten because of the drive of media sensationalism and reality TV. This is just one example of how the media outlets select and deflect reality.

However, new media has given us some new tools to direct media coverage. If you are frustrated with the way mass media is selecting out things you care about and think are relevant, try to start a conversation! If we can get enough buzz and discussion on Twitter, Facebook, and other online media about this drought it will catch the attention of the mainstream media. They will want to attract some of those hits too in order to get you as their audience. #Kenya, #drought11, #cleanwater, and #waterforKenya can become trending topic threads on Twitter. Like me you can follow @QuietWay on Twitter or join the Facebook page.

The Internet is not a static element. It is constantly being changed by the unending conversations going on, and the mainstream outlets follow where the conversation is going. By using the Internet actively we can help to shape it, just like you can lead a conversation at a party by getting involved. You can make a difference in the lives of millions. That is the reality I want.

Why Social Media Means A Social Revolution

Social protests and revolutions are spreading like wildfire in the Middle East, shaking the very core of social orders which have been established for decades. In many ways the failed Green Revolution in Iran can be seen as a precursor to what we are seeing now in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, etc. Although the causes for these events are deep-rooted and varied, there is a general agreement that they would not have been possible without the social media revolution led by online blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. So what is it about the nature of social media that opens the possibility for social change where it has been supressed for so long?

In my Mission statement I mentioned a quote from “Democracy & Rhetoric: John Dewey on the Arts of Becoming”: 

“By making the individual both the means and the end of democracy, it [society] committed itself to investing its energies into creating individuals capable of possessing a moral will that achieves enough autonomy from dominant social forces that it is capable of reacting back on those forces with intelligence and power.”

One of the main imbalances that has existed in modern societies is the unequal access people have to channels of expression. So although there may be people who possess a moral will and achieve autonomy from sociel forces (media being one of the greatest of these), they do not have sufficient access to channels of expression. As a consequence of this, they may be able to react with intelligence, but not with power. Unless they are some of the few privileged to be in the spotlight, their reaction will not reach or influence many others. The potential for a public uprising is quenched before it has begun because they cannot distribute their message to enough people.As a result, the ones who controled the channels of expression controlled public opinion.

As I mentioned in Rhetorical Pressure and Moral Will, Kenneth Burke gave this warning in 1955:

“In practice, democratic states move toward a condition of partial tyranny to the extent that the channels of expression are not equally available to all factions in important public issues. Thus we see democracy being threatened by the rise of the enormous ‘policy-making’ mass media that exert great rhetorical pressure upon their readers without at the same time teaching them how to discount such devices; and nothing less than very thorough training in the discounting of rhetorical persuasiveness can make a citizenry truly free.”

What we can see right now is that social media has opened new channels of expression, and as a result information, emotions, and initiatives are spreading and bringing revolutionary consequences. Protests are being organized through Facebook groups and Twitter, restricted information about corrupt officials are available to everyone through Wikileaks and other web sites, and the social consciousness of new societies are being formulated by blogs and debated in online forums. Regimes are perplexed at this new social structure that is emerging. Unlike hierarchical institutions it is impossible to determine a leader you can kill or imprison to quell the movement. The new media are releasing private initiatives which organize themselves without directives from any organization. 

If any of you are in doubt about the real impact of the social media revolution, may I suggest you take a look at the following video clip ;)

We are in the middle of an exciting and scary media revolution. We do not know what social structure will emerge from the new possibilities of communication that we have unleashed. As Douglas Hesse points out, unlike the hierarchical structure of power and information, we are today experiencing “a quite different textual world in which knowledge and belief are shaped less by special isolated rhetorical acts than by countless encounters with any manner of texts, as if belief were a massive wiki."

In any case, I am excited about the possibilities this Brave New World offers, and if it can lead to a more democratic society, so much the better!