Upload This!

Distracted by Demons - Save Angel Update

I know that all two of my faithful readers are asking themselves, Where has my 47th favorite blogger gone? Fear not, loyal fans. I am still here; just a bit distracted by another thing. Well, blogging on another site, that is.

What? No, I’m not two timing you! Really.

Here’s the scoop:

The Save Angel Campaign is underway. Yes, I’ve been spending my blogging time empowering TV consumers worldwide to convince bottom-line-dollars-and-sense network execs that a show about a law-firm-CEO-vampire who saves the world on a weekly basis can be financially viable.

The concept is so out-there, so non-mainstream, it just has to be saved. Do you think you’ll be seeing demons on Law & Order? Blood suckers on Survivor? Well, maybe, but I bet they’d get voted off the island!

And that’s why I’m taking a stand. We need more shows like Angel: smart, witty and unexpected. Some call them cult shows, with a sort of snicker. But it’s shows like Angel (and Buffy before it) that can get away with things that traditional television dramas wouldn’t dare touch. How many series put a reformed formerly evil demon as the central character? And no, I’m not talking about the Donald Trump show, Apprentice.

So check out www.SaveAngel.org for more info on how you can help out.

Here’s your assignment, boys and girls: Ask your friends to watch the next incredible episode of Angel; have them pass on the request to others. You know the drill. Spread the love.

View image

Subscribe to the comments for this post

BBC: bias or blasé?

Inherent bias makes the media go round

Much print and electronic press has been devoted to discussions of whether news media, particularly the British Broadcasting Company, perpetuate an anti- (or pro-) Israel bias. The seldom stated, but often whispered truth of the matter is that all newsreporting is inherently biased— towards the story that’s most dramatic and conflict-oriented. Dispassionate observation in reporting, while it may have greater grain of accuracy, doesn’t sell: “just the facts” can read as dry as a technical paper. So news writers inject narrative drama. Holding to the tenet that good story-telling is a good conflict, journalists aim to make their reports more interesting by framing it as a struggle between individuals or groups.

While this is in part a conscious effort, I’d suggest it’s also (1) the inevitable consequence of the mainstream mindset that believes everything is a “two-sided” controversy; and (2) a culture that promotes greater acceptance for and identification with a perceived weak “under-dog,” versus rejection and disassociation from a strong “over-dog.”

Dr. Andrew Cline’s excellent Rhetorica site (and blog) identifies a taxonomy of such structural biases. He even takes on the issue of alleged bias in Israeli reporting, as presented in an editorial in New York’s Jewish Week.

But while he describes what he terms “narrative bias,” he fails to point out another pervasive psychology in traditional media: news, unlike editorial, hangs its public reputation on the notion that it is– as one such outlet likes to claim– “fair and balanced.” Let us assume that a particular service has as its aim, reporting on actual reality when publishing or broadcasting (for example) “all the news that’s fit to print”— as opposed to just making things up (ala the Weekly World News.) But, in order to claim honesty, journalists themselves need, as a core belief, to hold what they report as truthful and unbiased. Thus if presented with a contrary opinion or evidence of a bias, such journalists experience a form of cognitive dissonance. When told that a print or broadcast story is inaccurate or outright wrong, the initial response is to disbelieve the evidence, portraying the critics as themselves having an agenda.

In effect, once a story’s been written from their perspective , the journalist must buy into their own version of reality and dispute contrary views.

Don’t dis the dissonance

The theory of self-delusion caused by “cognitive dissonance” was developed Dr. Leon Festiger in the 1950s . Festiger claimed that when faced with a situation or opinion that doesn’t fit into pre-existing beliefs, people find themselves psychologically distressed, and their minds subconsciously create ways to relieve that distress. The easiest of which is to disbelieve the reality of the situation, or change the understanding of it to fit into the framework of the pre-existing one.

But cognitive dissonance guides not only the reaction after a newstory is run, but while it is being developed, too. When choosing supporting “authority” for a particular angle on a story, reporters can unconsciously self-select those facts and opinions that fit the mold of their pre-held belief. In science, this is known as fudging the data to prove a hypothesis. Followers of Kuhnian philosophy of science also hold this as “operating within a paradigm” where anything contrary is completely overlooked.

A worthwhile and fuller discussion of such “critical blind spots” in our world view appears at the parchment-backgrounded Sourcetext.com.

Read more »

Subscribe to the comments for this post