DEMOCRACY ON JUNK FOOD PROCESSED NEWS AND THE BODY POLITIC

Bill Grigsby NEWS ‘DIET’ AN INTERESTING, BUT UNDERDEVELOPED IDEA

“One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. “

(philosopher) Harry Frankfurt, ‘On bullshit’ (1988)

MAIN POINTS

. Processing is a useful metaphor for examining parallels with food system and dysfunctions between the news media and political systems.

. Increased processing in the news represents higher propaganda content, which reflects corporate capture of commercial news media and elections.

. The effects of these dysfunctions represent serious problems for the health of representative democracy.

LIMITS OF ANALYSIS

. Commercial news merit special attention—theirs is the prevailing business model for American media.

. Television is still the primary news source for most Americans who consume news.

. Concerns national-level politics

. Propaganda sources: . Pratkanis and Aronson, 2001 (Age of Propaganda) . Patrick, 2011 (Ten Commandments of Propaganda) . Cialdini, 2010 (Influence) . Hermann and Chomsky, 1988 (Manufacturing Consent) . Johnson, 2012 (The Information Diet) CAUSAL LOGIC

Increasingly concentrated corporate media ownership Competition for a shrinking audience

Pressure to tailor content to target audience: Propaganda and bullshit More processing of news and information, designed to increase audience and ad revenue Effects on democratic institutions (effects on public opinion, perception) Public opinion increasingly reflects monied interests THE PERSISTENCE AND REVISITING OF IDEAS

“Can you wonder that one sometimes becomes quite despondent about whether it is worthwhile trying to do scientific research in matters of health? The results may be of great importance in helping people to avoid disease, but you then find they are being misled by propaganda designed to support commercial interests in a way you thought only existed in bad B films. ”

First reference to ‘junk food’ news: 1983 (Carl Jensen)

John Yudkin (Pure, White and Deadly [1972]) WHETHER FOOD, MEDIA, OR POLITICS … FREE MARKETS ARE PRIZED POSSESSIONS

“Take a course in economics, they tell you a market is based on informed consumers making rational choices. Anyone who’s ever looked at a TV ad knows that’s not true . . . . .

. . . . The goal is to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and the business world spends huge efforts on that. The same is true when the same industry, the PR industry, turns to undermining democracy. It wants to construct elections in which uninformed voters will make irrational choices.”

Noam Chomsky. 2011. The State-Corporate Complex: A Threat to Freedom and Survival. Univ. of Toronto, Apr 7. TO PUT IT MORE CRASSLY . . .

“You don’t tell use how to stage the news, and we won’t tell you how to report it.”

Larry Speakes, White House spokesperson for Ronald Reagan

NEWS AND FOOD Some similarities

. Both undergo extensive processing

.References in the news to ‘junk food’ and news abuse (meet outbrain)

.Concentration of ownership

.Public inattention increases likelihood of large scale social consequences BIG FOOD AND RECENT HISTORY

. Corporate concentration and capture of the food system

. Agency capture by food industry (Congress, regulatory agencies—FDA, USDA)

. Heavy processing of product—flavor ‘engineering’

. Public health effects of processed foods: sugar, salt, and other chemicals

. Increasing media presence as means to persuade—biotech, farmers

. McDonaldization—a business model based on the fast food industry

. Counter trends: Slow food, local economy, CSAs, etc.

BIG MEDIA, POLITICS AND RECENT HISTORY

. Regulatory capture (FCC, FEC), ensuing concentration of corporate ownership

. Media and political institutions: From adversarial to advertorial

. Extensive processing of information—‘manufacturing consent’ (Hermann & Chomsky 1988)

. Illusions of consensus: constraints posed by news ‘filtering’ pressures

. 24/7 news cycle pervades, amplifies, distorts, dilutes

. Counter trends: Independent news, citizen journalism

STIMULUS RESPONSE: CONSENT OF, BY, AND FOR THE MASSES . . . And news media as both conduit and producer of propaganda

… they forgot Families and Small Businesses … EFFECTS ON THE PUBLIC’S NEWS ‘DIET’

. Propaganda content in news . Increasing in volume, sophistication, opacity . Seamless integration

. Audience imperative . Audience drives ad rates, shapes content . ‘Bait’—propaganda and bullshit, not journalism

. A democracy’s ‘health’ demise . State of news as symptom FILLER PRODUCT NO. 1: PROPAGANDA NEWS MEDIA AS PRODUCER OF AND CONDUIT FOR INCREASINGLY STAPLE INGREDIENT

. Propaganda: mass persuasion

. Advertising—propaganda defined

. Distance the propaganda from its source

. DoD/CNN ‘message force multipliers’

. Local TV news variant: Huey Lewis and the Fake News) FILLER PRODUCT NO. 1: PROPAGANDA NEWS MEDIA AS PRODUCER OF AND CONDUIT FOR INCREASINGLY STAPLE INGREDIENT

. Disambiguation—Ducks/Beavers (and tweets as news), Coke/Pepsi, Fox/CNN, republicans/democrats, Clinton/Bush (Blitzer dissembles)

. Reflect the values and beliefs of the audience

. Fox News: entitlement / regulation nation

. Social proof—public opinion, experts, front groups, astroturf FILLER PRODUCT NO. 2: ‘BAIT’ TIME-TESTED PRINCIPLES FOR LURING AN AUDIENCE

. New and timely—what’s trending?

. Conflict, scandal, outrage

. Strange and unusual happenings

. The familiar and/or famous

. Visual and dramatic elements

. Values consistent with those of the audience

FILLER PRODUCT NO. 2: ‘BAIT’ TIME-TESTED PRINCIPLES FOR LURING AN AUDIENCE

• Following a narrative (e.g., pirates, police shootings)

• Sports metaphors (election coverage as horse race)

• Short and basic (sound bites …)

• Fit a theme that is currently prominent

• Audience participation (in ‘polls,’ blogs, etc.)

• Bait and bullshit (Frankfurt 1988)—indifference to the truth

IF PUBLIC IGNORANCE ON IMPORTANT ISSUES WERE A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE?

. Organizational capture of national elections . Coke, Pepsi, Republicans and Democrats . One undertold story of Florida and the 2000 Presidential Election) . Distorted public perceptions of society . Wealth distribution: expected, ideal, actual IF PUBLIC IGNORANCE ON IMPORTANT ISSUES WERE A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE?

. Climate disruption warnings by scientists barely registers . Consumption as problem? Not for advertisers, politicians . Lasting effects . Distorted, persistent & lasting misconceptions on policy . Democracy = Elections CAMPAIGN SPENDING AS PERCENT OF GDP

Source: The Atlantic OUTSIDE SPENDING EFFECT OF CITIZENS UNITED RULING

Source: opensecrets.org BUT . . . . WHAT DO MEDIA HAVE TO GAIN FROM THIS?? (HE ASKED, INNOCENTLY) BELIEF IN DISCREDITED ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS PERSISTED MONTHS AFTER IRAQ INVASION

THE UNIV. OF MARYLAND/PIPA POLL (KULL, 2003)

(1) Link between Iraq and 9/11, (2) evidence of WMDs found, (3) world public opinion supported US invasion—one year after public campaign began No. of misperceptions per Fox CBS ABC CNN NBC Print PBS respondent None of the 3 20% 30% 39% 45% 45% 53% 77%

1 or more 80% 70% 61% 55% 55% 47% 23%

Bittersweet observation: It’s possible to cater to newshounds, but not profitable. PUBLIC OPINION AND CALLS FOR CHANGE

. Changes in law/policy are often predicated on social proof, real or perceived

. Importance of access to media to framing issues for public consumption . Manufacturing of consent—creating an illusion of consensus . Talking points, astroturf/front groups

. Can public opinion be bought? TO-DO LIST

1. Examine changes in public opinion on key issues

2. Social (vs economic) issues more likely to shift (where entrenched economic interests aren’t threatened)

3. How to measure ‘non-nutritive’ content in news?

4. Measuring public knowledge

5. What can be learned from understanding public health successes?

TANKS!

STUBBORN RESISTANCE

• American exceptionalism • Judicial ideology, corporate personhood, money in politics • Debates • Political equivalent of professional wrestling, substitution of substance for ritual, spectacle • American tradition of anti-intellectualism (Hofstedter 1965; Pierce 2011) • Persistent heuristics: Social Proof; Elections = Democracy • US electoral system: Winner-take-all

WAYS FORWARD

• Media reform • public funding • return to journalistic principles • Public utility commission • Election reform • Campaign financing • Alternative electoral models • Campaign advertising • Full disclosure • Heightened public awareness • Public health measures • Are things getting better or worse, and how would we know? • Disclosure of ‘ingredients’ (propaganda content, bait) • Elections (relationship between money spent and victory) Talking Points

. Processing of food and news: Similarities . ‘Health effects’ on ostensibly democratic institutions . Primary suspect: pervasive ‘junk food’ content in commercial news . Increasing proportions of propaganda, audience ‘bait’ . Institutions with compromised integrity . Public opinion: Policy’s weather vane, subject to influence by monied interests . Manufactured legitimacy—mutual benefits for Media, political actors . Patient prognosis—Corporate capture of democracy?

BIG FOOD AND RECENT HISTORY

• ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) • Broadcasting • Driven by profitability of the enterprise • Capturing the food industry hamstrings opposition strategies • McDonaldization—a model adopted widely DEMOCRACY AND NEWS MEDIA

. Pressures to ‘filter’ news stories (Hermann and Chomsky, 1988) . Audience, advertising rates, and content . To inform, entertain, infotain . The public and partisanship on media: Mission Accomplished . Worst-case scenario: Florida, Bush v Gore and a failed election . Media’s prerogative: What to cover, what not to cover, where to cover it, how and how long? . Money, elections, and conflicts of interest PUBLIC OPINION AND CALLS FOR CHANGE

. Changes in law/policy are often predicated on social proof, real or perceived . Framing issues for public consumption: Who has the ability to: . Access and use mass media? . Influence news coverage? . Create illusions of consensus—astroturf, front groups, talking points … . The Tobacco Industry’s playbook (widely admired, emulated): . Discredit the science . Use scientists to do the job . Inject doubt, uncertainty into the debate . Is money the key determinant (e.g., climate change)?