It is by now a commonplace to note that the world as presented to us by various media is not the world of flesh, blood, earth, fire, water and air. Media reality is altered, making the use of the term “media parallax” fitting as it comes from the Greek parallaxis, meaning “alteration.”
The parallax effect can be used to get a more accurate picture of reality. Look at an object with one eye closed. Then look again with the other eye closed. Neither mono-view gives an accurate representation. Humans have two eyes and use parallax for greater depth perception and a more accurate view of the world.
Media flatten our natural stereoscopic view of reality. We get a singular perspective. This is, in part, a technological consequence. But it also involves the way media is used.
In news reporting, he-said/she-said “balanced” reporting gives us two views, neither one accurate. It’s like the eye experiment above. We get a view with one eye closed and then a view with the other eye closed. We see one Cyclops arguing with another Cyclops.
I got to thinking about this after re-reading a couple of books by Jack Kerouac recently and re-calling the tragedy of his life. Whatever his personal difficulties, they were exacerbated by the distortions of his celebrity. Neither detractors nor worshippers got him right. They were just tribes with different blind eyes. The video above shows the author being interviewed by Steve Allen in 1959. I used it because Allen was an intelligent man and the interview is, by today’s standards, responsible and informative. Even so, the Kerouac presented is not Jack Kerouac. He is a Kerouac from an alternative universe.
Ignoring the obvious pain this caused Kerouac, the example of his media displacement is a rather benign one. Today’s celebrities sometimes suffer from the same pain, but most have adapted to living life in at least two worlds. In many ways, it’s their specific job. They are paid to inhabit multiple worlds.
The dangers of media parallax become dire when we turn to more critical issues. With one eye closed, society can’t know where the cliffs are, to use a current favorite metaphor. What can we do about this?
We all share in the dilemma, and it’s not enough to pretend to be above it all and blame various journalists or media. I certainly can’t blame Steve Allen for the alternative Kerouac we saw on his show. It was an easygoing, even supportive, segment. It is the case, of course, that many media have learned to market the one-eyed view. They are exploiting, irresponsibly, a hard-wired media characteristic.
We can’t begin to seriously address the dangers to the earth of a warming climate until we can get the stereoscopic view in full context. How do we do that?
I think it requires a far more responsible approach to both media production and consumption. We are at the end of a media era that resembled a land rush. It was so easy to make money in the media. It was so easy to enjoy its first fruits. It was so easy that we didn’t pause to consider what it would mean to responsibly inhabit this new world.
The flattening and altering of reality by media is, as noted, at least partly a technological problem. We have to take substantive steps to overcome it. We have to educate ourselves about our blindness. We have to seek out broader perspective and construct accurate contexts for ourselves. Citizens are going to have to be taught how to do this, and it’s a fair question to ask whether an educational system controlled by politicians who succeed through media distortions will ever be allowed to teach us to pierce the illusions.
Those who work in media also have to recognize the distorting effects and do whatever they can to overcome them. I know many journalists who try to do so. Many don’t get much help from their employers. Others simply follow old habits.
I’m tempted to say we ought to put on our flats screens a warning like those placed on cigarette packs. “This Is Not Reality, But Just A One-Eyed View Of It.” Something like that.
Much of postmodern culture and communications theory taught that a limited perspective is all that’s ever available to human’s limited vision and intelligence. That may be true, but it doesn’t mean we can’t mitigate the limitations somewhat. We can do more to see reality as it is. The dangers we face make it a moral imperative to do so.




16 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Glenn,
I truly look forward to reading your musings on relevant topics.
Thanks for this post. (Your posts are food for the soul.) :)
And Chris Matthews this past Friday was praising the current fad of creating fiction based on the workings of government and making movies of it. I really think the majority of us are so overwhelmed by “grim” realities we want to live in parallax, in fact are living in parallax. It seems we demand entertainment with our information, or too often instead of.
Having led all of my life believing knowing and understanding the truth is indeed empowering and the only route to mastery; I feel like an alien — and am treated like one when I speak truth in social situations. :-)
I think it’s high time we stuck a stick in Polyphemus’ eye and sailed into the streets.
I feel very fortunate that I lived during the time of the great news people – Murrow, etc. Now I don’t even bother to watch the news. I read some newspapers on line. My belief is that newspapers wouldn’t be going out of business if they were printing the truth but readers have realized that it’s just a bunch of nonsense so they don’t bother. I find it sad; there’s nothing quite as satisfying as reading a GOOD newspaper. What we have is the media distorting the news for their corporate masters and helping to destroy our country.
Interesting…And the truth shall set you free. And I think you are correct; alot of people do not want that. Another major change in my
lifetime is the ready accepting of NOT telling the truth; lying seems very easy for alot of people. Maybe the news is partly the cause, who knows. Thanks.
It seems to me that we still rely on print forms for investigative reporting, and that is what I fear most to lose. As we lose print, whether books or newspapers/magazines, we are losing the funding that is required for investigative journalism, and I really am concerned about that.
I also think we are losing the capacity to consume any writing beyond what takes 3 or 4 minutes to read.
Marshall McLuhan in his seminal work on media, Laws of Media, made this observation:
I think McLuhan is correct. The fix will not be found by the techs, bean counters or pols, but by artists in various fields who will improve our vision and in so doing will release the power of the new media.
That is why in spite of my siding with the views of the late and beloved Aaron Swartz that information on the Internet should be free I have subscribed to the online New York Times. It’s not perfect but it’s something and you have to applaud their efforts.
Yep. You have to do a lot of lying to remain socially acceptable, at least here in the South. :-) To risk thread drift, it is I think a matter of that there are those of us who think of the impact our words will have on others and then folks like me who think first of speaking the truth. At least I managed to parlay it into a job where truth was what I was paid for. Now however I am trying to retrain myself to be more concerned about impact and less about truth. But maybe that is really the nidus of what politics is about?
We’re No
AngelsAliens!Oldgold, this is very wise. “The Real” is a tricky subject. I’m only dealing with material or superficial reality in the above. Media intervenors separate us from even that. But “That” is only the beginning of the True, and it’s artists who must build the further bridge.
!!
I really like your idea of the easy money in TV and related media as distorting the whole business. We never think about how things will work at the outset, we just assume we can adapt existing forms to the new thing. That only works in the short run. In the long run, truly innovative ideas have their own imperatives and work out new forms. In our society, that means that once the new thing gets in the hands of money, it is manipulated to create more money.
Exactly. Too often other alternatives are subordinated or erased. That is a deeply troubling thing about our mono-culture money culture.
Double your Exactly!
When you and I talk about our respective lives we are talking, in the present, about the past. What is being said is not who we are but a mere glimpse of who we were.
Interviewing anyone will give rise to this paradox, the dilemma of existing and speaking about existing. We don’t speak of existing, only having existed. That’s all that is possible. And engaging is such behavior on an ongoing basis conveniently gives us a reason, however conflicted, to not be fully present.