Dear Readers,

My father has a quirk which surfaces whenever he watches a movie: Whenever he notices a hidden advertisement (or “plug”) for a product, he brings it to everyone else’s attention. For instance, the hero of an adventure flick might leap into a Wrangler for a highspeed forest chase, and my father will say: “That’s a Wrangler commercial.”

He’s right, of course. It’s well-established business practice for movie studios to feature a particular car in their chase scenes, or have a movie’s protagonist extol the virtues of a restaurant, or simply have the camera linger innocently on a corporate logo in a movie’s scenery. In exchange for such onscreen tributes, the studios receive money from the advertised companies, and this helps offset initial costs of production.

But here’s the thing: Everyone knows this. The American public is generally ignorant about a lot of things, but one thing it definitely knows about is Advertising, an art the United States can be said to have helped pioneer. The majority of moviegoers could identify these advertisements just as my father could. But unlike him, they don’t bother. They’re just there to enjoy the movie. Why’s my father different?

Speculation on the reasons for why someone does anything is always risky, but I think my father is just far more afraid than most of being manipulated. He identifies the subtle suggestions of today’s advertisers because one of his greatest prides is his possession of a discerning, independent intelligence, and he is therefore constantly on the lookout for any attempt to corrupt it.

My father’s fear of manipulation has a parallel in the attitudes of the news media. Unlike newspapermen of old, today’s reporters based in the US and other Western countries hold no virtue in higher esteem than a lack of bias, perhaps best illustrated in this advice given to journalism students around the world: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

Of course reporters often fail to curb their biases, but that’s not a high horse I’m jumping on (besides, how many people can ride one horse?). Rather, my point’s this: Far more than my father, journalists are terrified of being manipulated.

Oh, they don’t mind manipulating. The mythical figure of the socially conscious, truth-seeking reporter sniffing out Evil Corruption on behalf of The Public is one that still resonates with journalists. But the danger of being manipulated is the collective nightmare keeping journalists and their editors up at night.

This is why news stories more and more adopt a similar attitude to that of my father. A perfect example is President Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” landing on an aircraft carrier last year. Instead of reporting the story of the event, reporters locked their teeth like Dobermans around another story: the story of how great a photo opportunity for Bush it all was. By doing this, the Fifth Estate sent a message to the Bush administration: “Maybe common people found your display impressive, but we are sophisticated, intelligent truth-seekers, and as such we have merely coolly analyzed the possible political effect of your obvious, to us of course, tactics.”

The media do this with everybody. Read news articles or watch broadcasts about Presidential candidates and instead of “Is Joe Politician a good American?”, you’ll hear “Can Joe Politician convince the Public he’s a good American?”. If a politician gives a speech to union representatives, the journalists will report: “In order to ingratiate himself with unions, Joe Politician gave a speech today…” The message in these rephrasings and additions: We know what you’re up to, Buddy.

The media also manifests its fear of manipulation in its adversarial stance against any presidential administration. Despite being a member of the same political party as every reporter in the White House pressroom, President Clinton’s White House spokesman George Stephanopoulos was nearly eaten alive his first day on the job, and things didn’t get any easier for him (at least until he lost the position). His head being bitten off wasn’t motivated by animus; most reporters were glad to see President Clinton in office. But they nevertheless felt that as Reporters, they had to show President Clinton, continually, who was Boss.

Now you may be asking (yeah, like heck you are): “$, isn’t it good to have journalists chomping at the bit to cut through B.S. for us, even if occasionally we want to feed them to sharks?”

And I answer you: Sure. I’m not condemning journalistic antagonism. Even while frequently, even horrifically imperfect in its coverage, the Fifth Estate holds a very important role in the world, which it couldn’t fulfill if it allowed itself to be led around by the nose. This is just my analysis of a phenomenon.

ON A LIGHTER NOTE

In a recent interview for Entertainment Weekly (“The Must List”, June 25/July 2, 2004), former Batman Adam West gave new Batman Christopher Bale the benefit of his experience in wearing the cowl.

“Here it is,” the ex-Caped Crusader said. “It’s important to be very careful about your cape. Don’t use it for sexual high jinks. It can get ugly. Trust me. Also, be careful when flushing. And, um, be mindful of the parking meters with the Batmobile. They’re everywhere!”

Now that had nothing to do with a historical perspective on current affairs, the professed reason d’etre of this website, but I think there are some things everyone needs to hear. You know, like “Signal before you switch lanes,” and “Striped clothes for fat people is a fashion Don’t.”

That’s all for now, Folks. God loves ya. Enjoy your day.

Your Theocrat,

$