The film, featuring too many famous actors to name, concerns a series of plotted events to help lift the President of the United States past a child-sex scandal and through reelection into a second term. Basically, (no plot-killer here), Heche, Hoffman, and De Niro plan utter fallacy upon fallacy to change the tide of the American public in favor of the President. One could easily learn from this to never trust ones own government.
Yet, there is a more important. prosiding, and arguably pessimistic message in this wonderful film: you can never really be sure of the truth, no matter how it is fed to you.
In the film's case, the American people are receiving the messages from all the news-media, from high ranking government officials, and from other trusted sources. Does this mean we should always be in constant doubt? Well, it depends. Our parents and loved ones probably mean us no harm and therefore are probably being honest with us in terms of what they know to be true. Yet, the overarching concern should always be agenda. A parent pushes a child often because they love the child and want the child to understand responsibility, consequences, and the like, while a close friend might go as far as fibbing to protect the emotional psyche of another person. The problem comes when trusted friends, news media, officials, etc., knowingly provide false information in order to press their agenda. Think this doesn't happen?
Think again.
Let's start with the place we would, in our cynical minds, mostly commonly expect this. Politicians. Now the first thing I want to do is separate the lies into two different categories: lies to protect ones self and lies to advance ones goals. Telling a lie for self-protection, such as, I didn't sleep with him/her, I never said/did that, etc., are fibs that, while certainly not innocent by any standard, are created to protect image, employment, lifestyle, and the like, and are made to counteract certain prerequisite events, such as an affair, an offensive remark, or an abusive act. These are not lies for advancement but rather lies against destruction.
Lies for advancement would be personal manipulations of truth only to assist a person in achievement of goals and not to protect their position. When Mark Sanford lied to his staff about where he was going to go, in order to carry on an elicit affairs, and when he told the press he loved his wife to gain favor with voters, those are these sorts of acts. Wag the Dog is based solely on these sorts of lies...upon lies upon. It all likelihood, the President, whomever he/she may be, does this all of the time. In part, we are okay with it because we assume his words are said in a protectionist manner designed to keep the people of our country safe, but, in truth (whatever that may be), we really can't be sure of that, can we? It's just easier to believe the lie or uncertainty than constantly worry that its all a lie and the world as we think we know it is non-existent.
How about newsmen? Real journalists often hold back stories, but do they lie? That depends. Where do they get their news? Blindly trusting multiple sources is not exactly lying unless the media begins to accept things that they might not really believe. Think of every time you have heard a commentator question the validity of a story where the reporters did not really seem to finish their fact-checking.
Then, of course, there's the media that lie, and we know they lie, and we're even okay with their lies and half-truths. Those people, of course, are news-talk-show hosts like Limbaugh, Beck, Olbermann, and Maddow, who have clear cut agendas, make those agendas known, pick which stories they report on and how to report them, often manipulate or avoid major parts of the story to further their own agendas, and tell you all the ways that, "the other side" (whatever that really is, statistically it doesn't exist) is trying to play you for a fool, while whatever commentator you are watching is doing that throughout the program. These so-called "anchorpeople" are doing nothing more than manipulating the truth to untold extremes, and we (or most of us) know it. Nevertheless, we watch them religiously because they tell us what we want to hear: that we are a member of the group of good guys in the fight against the evil capitalists/socialists/communists/fascists/right-wingers/left-wingers/child murderers/women haters/white supremacists/minority lovers/closed-minded people/progressives/money-lovers/America haters/the religious right/atheists/human rights abusers/"morons"(-that quote thanks to our friend Rush), and anything else you can think of arrogantly calling someone. No side more guilty of this than the other, but nonetheless they will both say these things and call the other side names for saying these things...it kind of reminds me of 2nd grade. Doo-doo head. Stupid face. Liar, liar pants on fire...
The ones who say these things in grammar school aren't newscasters though, they are our classmates and friends. We are taught to cope by demeaning others, which could be the basis of this angry, need to know, manipulative, and often malicious culture that we have created for ourselves. The problem is that many children, teenagers, and even adults will create lies to help themselves out rather than facing the truth, and in this case it can be someone as close as a close friend. These lies are often worse than the other types, not only because they get personal, but also because they are often based on demeaning someone or something else meaningful to the person being lied to.
We don't tend to like the word "lie" for these things, so we call them false rumors. Its very easy and rather inconsequential for a person to call a politician a liar, or to call a newsman an incompetent, or to call a commentator a pawn, but when it comes down to personal situations, malicious persecution of a friend or cohort often is more costly and creates more problems than the initial liar can imagine. Going to a small school with a tight community, one allegation against a student, professor, administrator, or staff person travels at a nearly unstoppable pace. A claim of a professor having unfair grading practices, relayed to another student simply because the initial student was unhappy with a grade, can irreparably damage the professors image among the student body, especially if the professor is newer. A practical joke about someone being unfaithful to a boyfriend/girlfriend, heard by a wrong or misinterpreting ear, can lead to the end of a relationship. Spreads of rumors that a roommate is talking about the other behind his/her back can lead to an untenable situation, and rumors spread about a person by an ex- can irrevocable damage another person's reputation. For whatever reason, this does not stop us, but rather it is in our nature to respond with equally damaging force with rumors of attempted usurpations, affairs, unethical academic practices, and God knows what else.
The vast majority of the time, these rumors are not started or rescinded for protectionist purposes, but for self-advancement alone. I'm not suggesting you trust no one, but rather that when we receive news, be it from a newsman, a President, a friend, or whomever, if the story seems unreasonable, ridiculous, or too good to be true, and seems to be too aligned with the providers agenda, double-check it, and we will all be better off and living in a freer, healthier, more thoughtful society.
Friends
News
Commentators
Officials
No comments:
Post a Comment