How Does Manipulation of Language in the Media Affect the Way People in this Country Behave - Term Paper Example

How does manipulation of language in the media (print, online, television, etc affect the way people in this country behave? The mass media play a very significant role in the lives of people where they inform, entertain and educate the masses through dissemination of information which may be difficult to access at individual level. In this case, print media include publications such as newspapers, magazines for instance, while electronic media constitute television, radio and online broadcasts as well as publications on the other hand. However, information dissemination often involves manipulation of language where the media seek to persuade, impress or even distort the truth in some instances to fulfill various objectives. It can be noted that to a greater extent, people’s behavior is often swayed by what they consume from the media. Marshall McLuhan, a well known scholar in the world of media theory coined the popular phrase, ‘the medium is the message’ (mediatalk.guardian.co.uk). Language and the use of language is an integral part of the entire media network, be it a newspaper or the television. All the media messages are particularly designed to achieve a certain purpose hence the language use is often influential on the behavior of the people. McLuhan goes on to state that the media is “Hot” and “Cold” depending on how passive and active the audience is in constructing the meaning of the message. This basically points to the effect that audio and visual media are hot because the audience has to encode meaning on its own in contrast to cold media such as the print media where the reader is often told exactly what the message is (McLuhan 2001). Famous philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche1 termed language as nothing more than ‘copies of sensation’ and not ‘sensation’ itself. Simply put, this refers to the fact that language merely transfers one thought or idea to several minds. And the deliberate manipulation of the same can have a tremendous effect on a very massive scale through its audience. One may think they possess knowledge of a certain topic where as all they really have is a second hand opinion. Having the ability to reach a lot of people on a large scale, the use of the language in the media is often crafted to enable the achievement of their goals. Specifically, when we talk about language we need to also focus on perception and perspective. The use of words or manipulation of the same can affect a person’s perception of an event or an individual. There are two ways for one to get affected by language and this can be through emotional exploitation and the other by affecting a person’s rationality or reasoning. A very good example of this would be commercials on the billboards where one associates with a niche because of the language used. For instance, a commercial for a Porsche uses the word “us”, thereby making the viewer feel as though he is part of that elite group when he very well maybe miles apart. This is a kind of emotional manipulation. By targeting a person’s desires and wants we make him think that he wants a Porsche. It can be noted that specific language is used to achieve certain goals in particular contextual frameworks. Language can be used to distort the truth in some instances where the objective would be primarily concerned with influencing behavior towards a certain subject among the targeted audiences. A very good example of this would be propaganda that political parties and individuals unleash upon society which can ignite hate and at times even the opposite. Statements such as “all Muslims are terrorists” provoke people to think about the 9/11 attacks, but such a vast generalization cannot possibly be accurate. Indeed, there is a strong feeling among other Americans that Muslims are terrorists but in actual fact this may be difficult to prove. This widely held belief has been greatly influenced by the messages they consume from the media. Hadley Cantril (1940), a professor who investigated the 1938 Orson Welles broadcast, can be also be cited as an example that shows how the mass media can gain influence through trust which make it possible to manipulate the audience. It refers to the great public panic during the 1930’s in America when H.G. Wells began the fictitious account of a war with aliens. The entire nation was in a state of panic and shock thinking that they were under attack by a great force. The “live” feeds of the Martian invasion had the vast majority fooled. It caused many to leave their homes and take to the streets, while some simply left their homes and never came back. It shows the manipulation that the radio has over the masses. It also shows that people in general are ready to accept as true whatever they are told. It was apparent that because of the routine manipulation of the medium on the public, the radio broadcasts played a big role in persuading people to believe that they were in fact in real danger of being attacked (Corner 2000). In particular, this was a very good example of the "Hypodermic Syringe Model", a hypothesis which basically claims that instruments of mass media are very effective in influencing their audience and capable of "injecting" ideas and behaviors directly into rather inert audiences of isolated individuals. Cohen (1965) was of the view that media such as the newspaper and television can provoke ‘moral panics’ by taking a very minute and inconsequential event and reporting it as a great problem. The media has a very large amount of influence over the people. So, if and when language is twisted and changed to making something seem more attractive or perhaps unattractive, the American people in general take it at face value without argument. The media truly manages to “inject” ideas into the minds of the public. If we look at the war on terrorism, we can see subconscious messaging there too. In fact, it is almost exactly the same as the previous Gulf war. The language used then had a sharp contrast concerning both sides that were at war. It has been noted through many transmissions of the war zone, that the American soldiers are always “friends”, “protectors”, “helpers”, where as the enemy was “heartless”, “barbaric”, “cowardly”, so on and so forth. By using such a distinction for the two sides, it can be noted that this is very clever way the media is building up favor for the American troops and at the same time promoting anti Middle Eastern sentiments. This in a way is an example of how the government uses the media to advance its own propaganda in order to get a political benefit and win over the public through the manipulation of language. The ruling government stereotypes the opposition, providing unity for the masses and thereby enhancing their own political plans. More often, the mass media in America are no more than corporate tools. Herman and Chomsky (1960) illustrated this very fact in Manufacturing Consent. They emphasized that the viewer is nothing but a pawn. Through their propaganda model, they showed how the government uses the media to enforce a control over the general public. The mass media at the end of the day is used as an instrument to indoctrinate the public on issues of importance to the government. The audience is told what they want, who they should like or dislike, what they need for instance. Language plays a very significant role in determining the behavior of people in such a way which may constrict a person’s thought process. Herman and Chomsky (1960), state that the language of many Americans is very limited. Thus, they argue that their vocabulary is weak and does not go beyond everyday use where in some instances people think that they are indulging in a free-for-all discussion, they would actually doing the exact opposite. Messages that go back and forth limit the thinking power of the average man. In this scenario, it is relatively easier for the media to use language that can manipulate the people’s behavior. Chomsky and Herman state that the media at times play the role of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, where crimes that take place in allied countries are far less evil than those of rival nations. This serves a certain political agenda where at the end of the day, the media is seen taking a leading role manipulating its viewers. This can be summed up by Berger’s notion of “Ways of Seeing.” He posits that in most instances, what we see is not essentially what we are seeing. Berger proves this by pointing out that the public is often a victim of false publicity all the time. People know that they are being told lies but however, they still go along with what they are told. They are delusional to the point of believing that they are making choices, which is certainly not the case. Berger (p.134) states that, “The spectator-buyer is meant to envy as she will become if she buys the product. She is meant to imagine herself transformed by the product into an object of envy for others, an envy which will then justify her loving herself.” This is how a person believes that if he has a certain product, he has achieved something positive in his life or his surroundings and vice versa. Language used in adverts in most cases is meant to persuade the targeted audiences to go for certain products. In order to understand the degree of impact manipulation of language has on the people in general, we can refer to the works of George Orwell (1984). He shows how the manipulation of language can affect society when he claimed that language for instance verbal and written communication is “largely the defense of the indefensible”. In his book The Animal Farm, he also illustrates not just those who manipulate the language but also those who are being manipulated and the impacts. It shows how the public is caught in a loop where before they can analyze and really understand what is going on especially in the government, someone would be busy manipulating their behavior as well as beliefs to conform to the status quo. Language is used to sway the people’s views on certain aspects especially those related to governance. However, Denis McQuails (2000) Uses and Gratification Model posits that media users often play an active role in choosing and using the media. The consumer in such a scenario plays an active role in the communication process where he can choose the media that best satisfy his needs. The uses and gratification theory suggests that the consumers play an active role in creating meaning from the media messages where they are not seen as passive consumers. Contrary to the widely held belief that the media are active over the audience, this theory points to the effect that the consumers are responsible for creating meaning from the media messages disseminated to them. It emphasizes how different people use the media in different ways in order to obtain different sorts of pleasure or fulfill different sought of need (Haralambos 2000:964). McQuail talks about a person’s reception and perception of different media messages. By virtue of subconsciously consuming messages designed using specific language, the people in most cases are not aware that they are being influenced to behave in a certain way to a greater extent. Those who are aware of the discrepancies in their lives due to the use of English in the media do not do much about it and more often take it as an event of no consequence. The masses are stumped from buying shampoo, to vote for the president and they do not know how much influence the media and the language have over them. In cases where they do, they do not know how to counter that influence. Most free thinking minds are regarded as conspiracy theorists or radical rebels. It can be noted that the average American does not mind the manipulation and does not know that it exists. Many individuals merely walk around with second hand knowledge of a topic thinking they know everything, where as in reality they are playing right into the hands of their manipulators. Works Cited “Politics and the English Language.” Shooting an Elephant and other Essays. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing (Pelican) Cantril, Hadley. (1940) Invasion from Mars Cohen, Stanley. (1965) Hypodermic Syringe Model George Orwells 1984. Modern Critical Interpretations. Herman and Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon) http://mediatalk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@6.eNbcccyvb1x.1@.3ba74f3f McLuhan, Marshal. (2001) Medium is the Message, Gingko Press Inc Mcquail, Denis (2000) McQuailss Mass Communication Theory (fourth edition), Sage, London Stienhoff, William. “George Orwell and the Origins of 1984.” Read More