Within the Culture of No Context

by Dunja Radosavljevic (part 1)

“The truth is often complex”, says prof. Bernstein of University of Texas in one of his lectures on the web, because “meaning is not inherent”. He follows this by, ”The greatest single failing of journalism today is lack of context. Facts by themselves are not truth.” Paraphrasing Bernstein, by adding context to content, you add meaning to fact, and with that, you attempt to assemble the closest version of the truth. Note here that Bernstein never says that truth does not exist, or that truth is completely subjective or relative, or that one can never know it. He simply says, finding the truth, or the closest version of it, is a complex endeavor, and nevertheless journalists should strive to reach that goal. It’s surprising how much this differs from the current postmodern discourse, which mostly wants to discredit and dispose of the concept of truth and meaning all together, by equating the very difficulty of finding it with its impossibility. This is the well-known fallacy of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which will rear its ugly head throughout this paper. I am well aware of some of the valuable contributions of postmodernism, however what I am talking about here is its worst and most dangerous trait – absolute relativity. In relation to media and journalism (even this division is already controversial and questionable), it means a consistent lack of context. In relation to democracy, it means a brainwashed voter.
Curiously, what I first choose to address in this paper is the rise of TV culture in the US, since I see it, along with Postman, Trow and Berman, as the backbone for the rise of ideology of no context. Consequently, I will explore TV’s prolonged success in creating and sustaining a civilization of immature and uneducated adults who, along with corporate conglomerates, become the greatest barrier to sane democratic processes. Emphasizing this political, economic, social and psychological analysis, I want to show that, in order for any sustainable change to occur, in conjunction to the insightful changes and improvements related to media that Gans mentions in his book, major change needs to happen within the dynamics of American values, exemplified by a more rewarding family life, as well as improved and more wide-spread education. On (not so much) a side note, this should be coupled, as explored by McKibben, with a renewed interest in nature and complex processes that govern it, so people can learn to better appreciate their place within the context of a planetary ecosystem. I will mention as well, that this should parallel and spring from a new awareness and acceptance of female voices whose impact on the Western Civilization, and the world in general, has been minimal, usually denied or suppressed, and which should now be more fervently explored and brought to integration. In order to limit though, the already large scope of this paper, I will leave the topic of feminism for another more in-depth study.
I am aware that the changes I am naming require almost a complete restructuring of the capitalist system in the US, which might be a sizable if not too large a bite for any individual to swallow. Nevertheless, I feel that only deep structural shifts can help us regain the lack of context, which so obviously plagues the media, and more alarmingly almost every other aspect of modern life.

The nature of the TV medium
I feel it’s pertinent to the discussion to describe the characteristics of the TV medium, so that one can understand the implications of its introduction to the American culture. Many, including Berman, have concluded that television generally works against depth and self-reflection, in that the flow of images and radiation lull the viewer into a sort of passive, almost narcotic state, where one literally abandons oneself to the experience (49). This happens primarily because of low radiation that the television set emits at a consistent rate inducing the human psyche, after prolonged use, into a kind of hypnosis. With this quality TV pacifies the viewer, yet simultaneously induces a kind of perpetual anxiety and nervousness, which is obvious in the example of children, who as a result of watching too much TV, develop ADD (attention deficit disorder).
As for the content of programming, it is in the nature of the medium to suppress the subject matter in favor of visual stimuli, as visuality is, basically, TV’s essence. What follows, as Postman explains, is that what becomes truly relevant on TV is not reality but visual credibility, where the test for truth becomes not the truth itself, but its visual representation. Does the reporter look sincere, authentic, vulnerable, attractive? Those are the questions and impressions in viewer’s mind, not whether the reporter is saying anything of substance or not (Amusing Ourselves to Death, 102). Granted, I am taking this a bit to the extreme, but suffice it to say that in a predominantly visual medium, substance can easily slip out the back door. The TV medium also requires a certain speed of communication, in order to be efficient and remain stimulating to its viewers. Hence, it becomes oriented towards short, fragmented pieces of information, which are mixed in a mosaic of dramatic stories propelled to grab attention. This fast changing pace of images, whether advertisements, news, or any other programming, coupled with the never-ending musical score, makes it very difficult for any story, especially a news story, to have a lasting impact, continues Postman (103).
This all leads into Trow’s metaphor about there being many choices that are presented in a context that is never described, so that what seems to be moving is not only the foreground, but the background as well (67). Nothing is stable or static for too long, for the screen must move and be dynamic. As a result we lose our ability to measure something against another fixed point, in order to place it in a related context and determine its value. With this loss of context, Postman reiterates, we also lose our ability to discern a contradiction, which means telling the difference between a lie and truth (Amusing, 109). The tragic consequences of this mediumistic failing can be seen in the American culture and public life, ranging from massive disinformation and misinterpretation among the American population, to illogical and manipulative arguments amongst politicians and policy makers. Within such a system, can we really expect a true democracy? And who is to be blamed? To clarify, what I am saying is not that TV technology is necessarily bad, or that it produces lies and bad policy makers, but that when over-consumed or fetishized, its limitations as a medium greatly exceed its benefits. The fetishization of TV, prevalent in the US, means using television for purposes it was never intended for and can never in its nature truly satisfy. This is the inherent fallacy I am interested in exploring further.