Creating Conscience Through The Communications Media - By Averthanus L. D’Souza

GOA, Sept. 28, 2010, 17:00 Hrs (Averthanus L. D’Souza):

It is unquestionable that the media of mass communications have an overpowering influence on the minds of people today. They are more influential than books or speeches or even sermons. The proof of this is quite evident from the unbelievably large amounts of money that manufacturers are investing to advertise on TV and radio, products which promise to make young ladies fairer and lovelier or to help older women remove the wrinkles from their skins which make them look older. The cosmetic products industry is, perhaps, the most aggressive advertiser on TV and Radio. But there are also the manufacturers of food products and fitness equipment. The barrage of advertising is so furious and unrelenting that we cannot but assume that the advertisers are making huge profits on the sale of their products.

Besides advertising, it is well-known that different TV channels put their own twist on events that take place all over the world. In fact, TV companies are owned by various individuals and companies who use them primarily to promote their own particular ideologies or interpretations of events. This observation does not need any elaboration whatsoever – it is self-evident.

What is of significance to us is the fact that the electronic media, in particular, plays an extremely prominent role in influencing ‘public opinion.’ The way facts are reported during News telecasts, and the way these are interpreted by ‘experts’ who are carefully selected to represent a particular point of view clearly betray the biases of the TV stations.

Forming Public Opinion
Opinions are formed on the basis of facts presented to the public. Therefore, facts are very often presented with a particular slant with a view to influencing the manner in which the viewer/listener receives the news. It is a well-known fact that the concealment of some aspects of the news, or the exaggeration of other aspects of the same news can affect the way in which the news is received and assimilated by the viewer. We know, for example, that during the Cold War, the Voice of America (VOA) was created to beam newscasts into the areas behind the then ‘Iron Curtain’ in order to correct the image of America and the democratic world which the citizens of those countries were forming. On the social front, we have numerous examples of how citizens of a country were manipulated to become xenophobic and to even resort to violence in order to ‘preserve’ their own culture or national identity. It is very easy to create – through the media of mass communications – social tensions among different levels of the citizens, or among different ethnic or linguistic groups. It is very easy, indeed, to form and to perpetuate stereotypes. The communicators who have control over the means of communications are masters in such stereotyping. History has recorded that entire populations were made to believe that all their economic and social problems were attributable to a particular race or ethnic group. The Jews in Nazi Germany, the Negros in the United States of America, the Muslims in Serbia-Herzegovina, the Tamils in Sri Lanka et cetera. In spite of the slogan: “facts are facts” everyone knows that facts are always presented in the media with a lot of seasoning. It does not take much acuity to conclude that most people form their opinions – and attitudes - on the basis of what they hear or see on TV or Radio. People have their favourite TV channels or newspapers. There are very few who will carefully study different newspapers or channels in order to identify the different slants given to news presentations or to analysis of events.

Tolerance
One phenomenon which has become very popular in recent times is the constant emphasis given to what is called “tolerance” of other points of view. Whether it is about works of art, or music, or religious practices, people are requested to be tolerant of differences. It is generally agreed that no individual or group should indulge in violence or iconoclasm just because they disagree with how an artist portrays beauty as s/he sees it; or how s/he artistically interprets religious truths. Indeed, it is a norm of civil society that everyone should respect the freedom of others to express themselves as they feel fit; provided, however, that they do not deliberately flout social norms of decency. Legally, this is expressed as the freedom to express, “subject to public law and order”. Thus no individual may walk in public completely naked, claiming that he enjoys the freedom of expression. In fact, even when some tourists walk in the town in beachwear there is an expression of disgust and disapproval. Common sense dictates that what is appropriate on the beach is not appropriate in the town.

While tolerance is certainly commendable as a social virtue, there is a risk that this can be extended to the blurring of the distinction between “right” and “wrong,” between what is socially acceptable and what is not. Society evolves its own norms from time to time: thus, e.g. it is not permissible to utter expletives on TV, or to expose certain parts of the body in front of the camera.

The important principle to be remembered, however, is that tolerance of different points of view, or different religious beliefs, or different social behaviours, does not mean “acceptance” of those points of view or beliefs or social behaviours. The concept of “tolerance” presumes the understanding that one tolerates another view or behaviour “in spite” of not agreeing with it, provided, again, that it does not have a deleterious social impact. Tolerance does not mean that one has to “agree” with a point of view or a behaviour or a religious belief. Tolerance requires disagreement between those who hold different points of view or beliefs. There is such a thing as a “social consensus” which makes it possible to live in peace and harmony.

Tolerance and Social Integrity

In a certain sense, the Common Good takes precedence over individual freedom. It might be necessary, under certain circumstances, to subject individual rights to the greater common good. It is always a matter of finely balancing individual rights with the Common Good. It is in this delicate area of balancing individual freedoms with the Common Good that there is great need for the formation of social consciences. And this is where the use of the media of mass communications becomes a necessary tool.

In our own experience we have seen the mass media being used to promote attitudes which are clearly destructive of society itself and of social morality. The spread of the contraceptive mentality can be directly attributed to such advertising. Beginning with the message that the use of contraceptives was necessary to limit family size and therefore to enhance the capacity of married couples to take care of their families, the advertising went on to promote the use of contraceptives outside marriage to prevent unmarried teenagers from becoming pregnant. Promiscuous sexual relationships gave rise to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The remedy proposed for this social disaster was the wider use of contraceptives. Pharmaceutical manufacturers and Research Laboratories worked overtime to find “better” contraceptives to make uncontrolled sex “safer.” The latest addition to the armoury of contraceptives is the “morning after pill” which can be taken on the morning after sexual intercourse. Efforts are underway to formulate pills which can be taken even a few days after intercourse. By a strange distortion of logic and common sense, a large number of people, particularly unmarried young teenagers, are being encouraged to indulge in sexual intercourse before and outside marriage. Whether intentional or not, such advertising has created an attitude that sex is “dangerous” and risky, and that only science and medicine can offer ways to make sex “safe.” The concomitant attitude has been to portray pregnancy as an undesirable disease. The youth must be protected from this disease of unwanted pregnancy: hence the use of more contraceptives. Of course, when contraception fails, there is always the next remedy of abortion which is being provided by medical science. The legal system is also trying to keep pace with this “scientific progress” by making it easy for under-aged teenagers to abort their babies without the knowledge or consent of their parents.

Our social attitudes have been so distorted that we fail to see that the remedies which are being offered by medical science are worse than the disease itself. The fact of sex, and the licit use of sex only within the framework of marriage, is determined by the Moral Law – not by medical science. What has happened in today’s topsy-turvy world is that the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV-AIDS, is considered to be a medical problem rather than a moral problem. This leads to greater confusion about the nature of “Man” and the ultimate purpose of human existence.

Our present sorry state of affairs, including the political and the economic mess in which we find ourselves, is the result of our ignoring the moral foundations of all human endeavour. Science without humanity; politics without principles; business without morality; knowledge without character, is, as Mahatma Gandhi pointed out, the sure guarantee to disaster.

There is an urgent need to infuse morality into every aspect of our human existence – whether it be politics, economics, education, scientific research, medical practice, legal practice or private behaviour. The absence of morality in public life is like the absence of life from the human body. We will be looking at a decaying corpse instead of at a vibrant, and creative life.

Tolerance and Truth
We must be careful not to confuse tolerance with the dilution of truth. The modern world has fallen into the trap of diluting truth (or even abandoning it altogether) in the name of tolerance. We are asked to accept abortion, adultery, homosexuality, greed, cut-throat competition and narcissistic selfishness as the new values of civilization, and to abandon the traditional values of compassion, honesty, cooperation, moral purity, abstention and self sacrifice. And then we wonder what’s wrong with this world ! We destroy the ecological balance of Nature in the name of economic development and then complain about the increasing incidence of floods, droughts, earthquakes, and cyclones. Nature is very tolerant – but only up to a point. We may not exploit Nature without suffering the consequences. The Roman thinker Horace expressed this very vividly when he said: “Naturam expellas furca; tamen usque recurret.”( Epist.,I.x.24) (trans: You may expel Nature with a pitchfork, but she will still reassert herself.)

Truth and Communications
The technological advances in the media of mass communications have made a substantial contribution to the distortion of truth. Hollywood movies, (now being blindly aped by Bollywood), portray promiscuous behaviour as entirely normal. Infidelity in marriage, adultery and lying are promoted as normal human behaviour. The impressionable youth form their opinions on the basis of what they see in these movies. Language has also been contorted to suit the new (un)ethical paradigms. Abortions are now termed medical termination of pregnancies. Such abortions are justified on the grounds that a woman has a “right” over her own body, and that, therefore, she can destroy the baby in her womb, who is considered to be an intruder and an aggressor. Commercial exploitation is sought to be justified on the ground that competition is an integral part of the business world. The filthy accumulation of wealth by a few individuals is considered to be an achievement based on their astute business acumen. They are held up as models to be emulated in Management Training Institutes and Business Schools. Psychological aberrations are not only condoned, but are justified on the ground that people have no control over their own psychological development. They are conditioned to behave as they do by “selfish genes” or by “gay genes.” If one points out that homosexuality is a behavioural disorder, one is labelled a homophobe or an ignorant fanatic.

Using the communications media to assert the truth

There is nothing wrong with the media of mass communications, per se. The media are just instruments to be used to convey information and to form public opinion on issues of importance. What has happened, unfortunately, is that those who have control over the media are the ones who have distorted value systems, and who, consequently, use the media to influence public opinion on issues of vital importance to society and to individuals. What is needed, and very urgently, is that those who see reality differently have equal access to the media, and are enabled to use the media to counter the views which are destructive of human values and of the integrity of society.

The media of mass communications (or social communications) are acknowledged to be the “fourth estate” or the fourth wing of governance, after the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The fourth estate has a powerful influence even over the members of the Legislatures, the Ministers and their bureaucrats, and even over the Judges who dispense justice. These are very sensitive to the views expressed in the newspapers and on television programmes. This means that the media should be extra careful of their role in the formation of public opinion. This means that the media should be particularly careful to ensure that the public is given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One eminent journalist expressed this very aptly when he said that “facts are sacred; opinions are free.”

It is pressingly urgent that the laity educate themselves about the morality of human actions, and influence their own professional organizations to adopt and abide by ethical norms which are conducive to the ennoblement of human individuals and of society as a whole. We are called to be the leaven in the mass; the salt which permeates the earth; the light which stands on the lamp-stand to enlighten its surroundings. We cannot afford to be swamped by the contemporary culture. Our mission is to redeem this culture and make it more human.