Howard Kurtz, in his Washington Post article for Aug 23, 2010, reviews several recent events in the popular media and how the public has responded to them. It might be of some benefit to analyze the psychological components of these events, as least with respect to public response, as an aid to critical thinking. Here is a link to Kurtz's column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2010/08/22/AR2010082202467_pf.html
Here are my points: (1) Kurtz initially covered the "Ground Zero Mosque" history, pointing out the positive reception it received when it was written up in the NY Times last December until the Conservative noise machine converted it in to a hot button issue that basically dichotomized the range of stances one could take namely, either "you're with us" or "you're agin us". This type of oversimplification based on emotional reasoning (e.g., people against the "Ground Zero Mosque" argue on the their basis of the emotional response, their feeling of "being slapped in the face" by the very proposal, and so on) excludes rational discussion because the people expressing these extreme emotions have not apparently spent the time to understand why they are responding the way they are. Of all of the questions asked by clueless reporter of anti-"Mosque" protestors, none see conscious of the fact that the site is already being used as a place for prayers. The question they should be asking is: "Why do you want to stop people who are praying in this location from continuing to pray here". (2) Implicit in Kurtz's article is the use of emotional reasoning and snap judgments (sorry Gerd Gigerezener) and disregard of the facts involved. Additional situations include the trial by Governor Rod Blagojevich, the Steven Slater flight attendant meltdown, the Shirley Sherrod (of Dept of Agriculture fame) racism flip-flop, the BP now there's oil, now its gone sleight of hand, and so on. In contrast to reviewing and analyzing the different components of an event, the most sensation and attention grabbing features as focused on and then goes viral through the social network until something new comes around to distract us. Consider the following event which few networks outside of MSNBC spent much time on: |The media treated the withdrawal of the final American combat |units from Iraq last week as a one-day story, despite the bloody |toll of the 7 1/2 -year conflict. Yes, it was symbolic, the war isn't |over and 50,000 U.S. troops remain behind, but the conflict |dominated our politics for years -- and claimed the lives of more |than 4,400 service members and untold Iraqi civilians. Except |on MSNBC, which carried embedded correspondent Richard |Engel reporting from the scene for hours, and a few front-page |stories, the herd seemed disengaged. The pullout was expected; |the new battlefront is Afghanistan. It would seem that an unforeseen danger of social networks is that they will spread rumors and misinformation at incredible speed and in a very short period of time, producing one perception of an event that becomes part of the "commonsense knowledge" about the event. Why bother with facts when one can rely upon tweeter and facebook to give one all of the news one news? Shirley Sherrod's case is an excellent example of this. (3) One event that has come and gone is the "Too Sexy For My Job at Citibank" story that got good play in the News Corp/Foxnews outlets; a reminder, here is a quote from Kurtz's article: |-- Village Voice reporter Elizabeth Dwoskin broke the story about |Citibank staffer Debrahlee Lorenzana, who filed a claim -- denied |by the company -- that the bank fired her because her bosses found |her voluptuous body too distracting. While it was "extremely pleasurable" |to watch the tale go viral, she writes in Columbia Journalism Review, |it was also "slightly disturbing. As a journalist, you spend so much time |plugging away at stories that you hope will impact society. Then, |suddenly, you hit on a sexy banker who lost her job, and, delighted as |you are, you also can't help but wonder: Is this what it takes to be |talked about all over the world?" Dwoskin talks about her experience with the Lorenzana story, the only one of her many writing to go "viral", and the effect it has had on here. Her review is on the Columbia Journalism Review website; see: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/watching_my_story_go_viral_in.php?page=all As teachers of psychology, I think we need to have better idea of where our students get their ideas and knowledge -- only a small amount of it comes from school and increasingly "knowledge" comes from gossip and rumor which can flip-flop in a manner of hours or minutes. This probably has a effect on how they view the information presented in class. At some point, given the delay in getting printed books and articles out, might students just tweet the "herd mind" about a topic and wait for the responses to flood in. And, of course, the responses with the greatest passion, the greatest repetition, and the greatest popularity will have to be right. Why, Gigerenzer's "recognition heuristic' can do all of the heavy lighting in applying such knowledge to real world problems, er, issues. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4357 or send a blank email to leave-4357-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
