Topic 139: On Thinking for Oneself

Carol:

The Rugged Individualist and the Marlboro Man             

 Any list of American cultural values invariably includes Individualism, emphasizing the importance of thinking for oneself, achieving independence, and making important life choices without the “interference” of family. Independent, Individual, free—the American Ideal.  The ideal aside, we are routinely bombarded with messages that attempt to manipulate us to NOT think independently, the in-your-face, overt messages media and advertising use to influence our spending and social habits. 
 

“Product placement,” is the use of branded items in television and movies. Next time you watch one of your favorite TV shows, look at what the characters are drinking and eating, or what the logo is on their laptops. According to Broadcasting & Cable, 80% of commercial television programming includes product placement, or “branded entertainment” (source: sourcewatch.org).  Products are also advertised through corporate sponsorship at sporting events, use of branded clothing, and promotion of products by the athletes who are paid a lot of money to wear a particular brand.
 

One egregious example of “product placement” is the collusion  between entertainment industry and tobacco companies. In a 1983 speech for a marketing meeting, then Philip Morris president Hamish Maxwell emphasized the importance of putting cigarette smoking into films: “Smoking is being position as an unfashionable, as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every creative means at our disposal to reverse this destructive trend” (source: Smoke free Movies). Despite increasing regulation against such practices and  denials  by the tobacco industry, 74% of US movies in 2002  showed smoking, and 11 of the top box office films showed special brands. Six of those films were PG-13, i.e. oriented towards a teen-age audience.  What about in 2011? Current films with PG-13 or PG ratings that show smoking without negative consequences include Sucker Punch, Limitless, Rango, and The Lincoln Lawyer.
 

I didn’t begin this essay with the intention of writing about tobacco, but I’ve kind of gotten myself riled up here. You can sneak alcohol into someone’s drink, but you can’t sneak a cigarette into someone’s mouth. Tobacco does NOT taste good when you take the first puff. Or the second, or after the first pack. Euphemistically, it is an “acquired taste,” encouraged by peer pressure and the glitzy notion that smoking is Cool, or whatever the current slang is. Despite the highly publicized health risks and decline in smoking by American adults, the number of adolescent smokers has increased in the past several years.
 

A 2009 article from scientists at Dartmouth shows the powerful link between smoking in movies and smoking in teen-agers. According to the authors, frequent viewing of movies that include smoking increases 3-fold the likelihood that an adolescent will smoke. (source: Heatherton and Sargent).  Parents may be scrupulous in monitoring their children’s exposure to violence in the media but not even consider the impact of exposure to positive images of smoking. Ironically, many of the actors shown smoking on camera are actually using clove cigarettes or other tobacco-free substitutes. In other words, they wouldn’t be caught dead smoking tobacco themselves.
 

There you have it, the ideal of Americans as independent human beings, unique and able to think for ourselves. The reality is that we crave to be accepted as attractive, happy and hip. Forget about exposing the insidious plots of subliminal messages in Walt Disney movies. Forget about analyzing the sexual messages in the magazine ads for vodka. Stand up, speak out, and use the power of your pen and pocketbook to fight  the tobacco industry’s hold on entertainment. That’s the American Way.
 

Sources:
Broadcasting & Cable qtd. In “Product Placement.” Sourcewatch.org
Smoke Free Movies.

Megan:

Confirmation Bias

I came across an article called "Citizenship Duties" on Salon.com a couple days ago, which offers an interesting perspective on this topic. The author, Glenn Greenwald, compares two quotes about trusting the judgment of a President. The first is Britney Spears speaking about President Bush in 2003: 

“Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes…”

The second is Kevin Drum, of Mother Jones, speaking on Obama: 

“I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.”

Greenwald’s point seems to be that this type of single-minded trust and deference is dangerous, no matter which party is in power. He compares such submission to a religious act:

“Venerating a superior being and blindly following its will is a natural human impulse, as it frees one of the heavy burden of decision-making and moral and intellectual judgment, and it also creates a feeling of safety and protection.”

But he encourages us to rise above this natural impulse (and rise above Britney Spears) and do our duty as citizens, which is to question our leaders.

In an effort to spend a little more time researching for this essay than I normally do, I went back and read the original Drum article as well as his irritated follow-up after Greenwald’s piece was published.  It is clear that Greenwald took Drum’s quote somewhat out of context, considering the entire article is about questioning President Obama and the Libya Intervention.  Drum said his original quote had been written hastily and upon reflection, “If I weren't unsure of myself, after all, I'd hardly be interested in Obama's views or anyone else's.”

 And then Greenwald responded (update added to original), basically saying that if Drum had said what he meant in the first place, there would have been no need to compare him to Britney Spears. Aside from the Britney Spears comparison, Drum and Greenwald’s arguments were fairly respectful, most likely because they are otherwise politically aligned. Both made references to respecting the other’s writing and ideologies, and the conflict only became personal because one liberal compared another liberal to a red-neck pop princess's unquestioning faith in the stupidest President we’ve ever had. 

Neither of them actually said that, but that’s gotta be from where the outrage stems. Similiarly minded people can argue smaller points of rhetoric respectfully, but (as the media constantly reminds us) Democrats are always going to think Republicans are stupid, and Conservatives are always going to think Liberals are elitist (perhaps rightfully so).  Greenwald isn’t the only commentator to call Drum out on his  apparent unquestioning devotion, but Drum disregards them because they are not Obama supporters anyway. He’s only interested in responding to criticism from someone who usually agrees with him, even though all the critics made the same point.
 

Everyone wants to believe that they think for themselves – that they are aware and informed and able to make up their own minds. But the truth is no one has enough time to fully investigate every issue they are expected to feel strongly about, so it is often easier to defer to the party line or the dogma of their faith.  Add to that, the problem of confirmation bias which suggests that people tend to favor information which confirms what they already believe even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Perhaps we must first question our beliefs before coming to any further conclusion about our capacity for independent thought.

Sources:
Greenwald's " Citizenship Duties" Salon.com

Confirmation Bias. Wikipedia.

Drum, Kevin. "Obama, Libya, and Me." Mother Jones.

and the follow up.