"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." - J. Robert Oppenheimer

The opening quote may serve as a dire warning from the past of the unintentional consequences of our creations. This is not one of those "feel good" quotations, but rather one to wake a slumbering world. In fact this quote comes from the man who is considered to this day the architect of the Manhattan Project. In other words, he brought humanity into the "Atomic Age." There are many other weapons that have also come about from the 20th century and they are perhaps more potent and chronically destructive than even the immediate threat of nuclear war.

Media outlets are controlled more than ever by ratings and entertainment value. How can we trust anything they say when all they have sold us since the beginning of the 21st century was reality TV style news format. Television has influenced the progress towards a visual media dominated world. And now the consequences are being seen with our mediums of information controlling the narrative. That is what I wish to discuss. We were warned about this dilution of intelligent thought and substantive sources by the late social commentator Neil Postman. Now we face even more threats from the ubiquity of mobile devices and social media as the arbiter of universal information distribution. With less substance and reliable information in our consumption it is a deadly epidemic. It all began with the TV's 24-hour news cycle and programming. I want to talk about five areas where our modern media industry has dissolved intelligent thought and discussion.

1. It is a Cesspool for Misinformation

In 1985, Neil Postman, a social commentator, (one of the best to have ever lived) wrote his seminal work Amusing Ourselves To Death on the premise of how entertainment culture has seeped into our sources of information. On a side note, my family and friends will likely roll their eyes knowing I am about to delve into a tangent that I often bring up when talking about the mainstream media! However, I am going to take a little bit different direction with this so do not fret!

In the book, Postman talks about the major threat of what he defines as "misinformation." He defines misinformation as this: "disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information...information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing." (Pg. 107, Postman) He further clarifies that he does not mean all new electronic media is aimed at confusion or disorientation from the truth, but rather when framed from a viewpoint of entertainment that is the unavoidable result.

An example of this "disinformation" can be seen in our awful version of the televised public "debates" (if they can even be called such). In recent history, since debates have become televised. Politicians and prospective presidential nominees have diverted from long-held traditions of focusing on substantive arguments to pandering egregious and excessive use of red-herring and ad-hominem based attacks. Red-herring and ad-hominem are logical fallacies; Red-herrings distract from the point of the debate or discussion, and ad-hominem fallacies attack a person's character or past statements rather than addressing their arguments.

In the traditional oratory style of what were known "Lincoln-Douglas" debates (named after the famous classical oratory arguments between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas) people would attend such events for the sole purpose of informing their own political knowledge and awareness of current ideological struggles. (Pg. 45, Postman). They would actually address each other's arguments in a clear and precise format designed to inform the people.

Unfortunately this is not where we find our current presidential debates. Let us return the ancient history 2012 (way back in the day as it seems) to get a little taste of what I am talking about! Yes, I am referring to the election between Former Governor Mitt Romney and then incumbent president Barack Obama. Oh, what intellectually rigorous times they were! Obama would lecture Romney on the merits of his healthcare plan during a debate forum that was supposed to concentrate on foreign policy and instead delved into healthcare and "gender equality". Romney retaliated by citing his plans for healthcare and economic reform. Granted, much of the debate did focus on the subject of foreign policy but rarely with substance in regards to the candidates' actual plans and strategic considerations for dealing with the ongoing crises in the Middle East and abroad.

What does matter when America only cares about "who" they thought won the debate on their social media posts. This country has come to value appearances and displays of charisma over substantiated facts. With television still remaining at 41% of global consumption in media this shows that television invites even more ubiquitous influence in how people think and perceive political discourse. With social media driving online reactions being what drive political discourse we slowly see the loss of pertinence in our discussions.

2. It is a Breeding Ground for Erroneous Information

Social media is the new seeming driven "battleground" for dogma and opinions on any variety of subjects. Whether it be: music, entertainment, movies, politics, and cultural trends all subjects are posted about and discussed in excess. Currently, the statistics reflect as of April of 2017, the social media giant Facebook has 1.9 billion users followed closely by the WhatsApp with 1.2 billion, and YouTube with 1 billion users. There is no doubt that the information age has introduced its presence in nearly every persons' lives. How does this affect our information and pursuit of knowledge? The answer is tremendously.

In the debates throughout the 2012 presidential race, we saw the same appeal to fanfare that encompasses most of our modern elections. Very little substance and reliable information is to be found. This is the inevitable result when you replace the reliance upon written and thoughtful media with the pictorial narrative style of television. Entertaining stories and scrawling graphics replace critical information essential to an informed society. Marshal McLuhan, another prophetic commentator, wisely quipped "the medium is the message." (Pg. 8, Postman) This media has brought to bear the impending threat of the distortion of the truth in not entirely new ways.

Many have accused the current president of the United States for pandering to the extremist-right wing groups that have largely received the blame for the emergence of "fake news" and "alternative facts." This is evident in the current dialogue surrounding the emerging drama of the Russian collusion scandal the current administration is fighting. From the very beginning of the investigations into Russian interference in the election, Trump made false claims that various intelligence agencies testified before Congress that there was no interference. None of this is new, false reporting began when newspapers became subject to what is known as "yellow journalism" which were slanderous expositions mostly used to propagate sensationalist stories that inspired grandiose desire/emotion for war and fueled events like the Spanish-American war. False news has been around a long time and even more so with public statements from presidents.

Nonetheless, this is a result of the continual denigration of our information sources and reliance upon social media for legitimate information. We have seen false information and facts become the standard since we have supplanted the supremacy of objective facts with emotions. Fiction becomes the new standard.

3. It Sensationalizes Current Events

Current events as presented in a thoroughly researched journalistic setting. Significant stories are no longer chosen for the quality and intellectual value, but by what garners the most attention. This why stories of great sadness or horror are often in the forefront of the news cycle. They inspire the most attention. And social media platforms have continued to promote this tradition of the sensationalist programming. We are often more aware of the stories most recently discussed than ongoing dialogues about critical social and political stories. A fine example of this is how frantically the Edward Snowden leaks were reported and how quickly they vanished into the collective of stories of the world events in 2013. One would think that a story surrounding a leak estimated to be the second largest in United States history (1.5-1.7 million documents).

Forget the fact that Mr. Obama ignored many of the reports until the story was released. Media outlets never commented on the unfolding stories surrounding the global surveillance network that gained almost unlimited access to people's personal information after the "hype" died down. When such a story fades into obscurity you can know for certain that show business is the normative standard for news reports.

4. It Poisons Discussions and Thoughtful Insight

Discussions and conversations on controversial subjects have become truly toxic in our modern world. Civility is on the verge of being systematically exterminated. It is pervasive in social media which has turned relations with people we hold opposing views from into a cold war-like posture. We treat our friends and family like the United States managed relations with the former Soviet Union with almost nuclear hostility! It is seen in the massive riots that have ensued after national controversies like Ferguson with the shooting of Michael Brown, the unarmed teenager who was gunned down by police officer Darren Wilson. The riots consumed the city resulting in violent protests, burning of businesses, gas stations, and some residential area destruction.

This is just one example of the countless recent increases in urban rioting and violent protests that have resulted in increased animosity over a very sensitive cultural conflict. This is not the only form that such violence and civil discourse have turned for the worse. Such tirades and railing against opposing viewpoints even in the face facts has stemmed through intense "political debates" on Facebook that have become a culturally common occurrence. People often find themselves caught in the ire of some angered "friend" subscribed to their page if they post anything that even remotely alludes to a political subject.

Such hate filled rhetoric is what has fueled violent political protests against the current president such as the riotous upheaval on U.C. Berkeley's campus a few months ago. People believe that like public spaces, Facebook is a sort of continuation of public forums of discussion are sadly deceived. Postman makes the argument that it is a false assumption that an invention like the TV is a mere continuation of the news bulletin board, or public newspaper. (Pg. 58, Postman) The modern television-fueled media clearly does not amount to the same intelligent discussions and civil discourse once found in American communities. Instead we see the pervasive societal trend of defaulting to extremist ideologies. the Berkeley riots are evident of what results when the bombastic rhetoric of grandiose stories and portrayal of information becomes the main version of the truth.

One final example to show the truth behind the "show business" style of journalism is the documentary-drama that was televised on November 20, 1983. the program began with a film called The Day After which was semi-fictional representation of what the events right after a nuclear war would be like. At the height of the Cold War this was very relevant in terms of media focus and attention. After the film was shown, ABC network (who was the host of the program) held a round table discussion forum. It featured some of the most brilliant individuals in recent history from every discipline. Henry Kissinger (former secretary of state), Carl Sagan (renowned astronomer and scientific mind), Ellie Wiesel (a true humanitarian and beacon for the sanctity of human life), Robert McNamara (former secretary of defense under the Kennedy Administration), and several others were included in the discussion. Ted Koppel was the moderator of the discussion/debate event.

This program was supposed to exemplify the paragon of seriousness that television could be. It removed all of the usual theatricality of television of the bright lights, dramatic music, and interruption of commercials. It allowed the panelists around 5-10 minutes to make observations about the nature of a worldwide nuclear war from the prospective what society could do or know to prevent such an existential apocalypse from happening. Many of the speakers talked briefly of their opinions on their observations for how a nuclear holocaust would mar the planet, but such substantive discussions were often interrupted by Koppel trying to keep the narrative moving for "the sake of time." This frantic abbreviation of serious discussions often cost the panelists crucial exposition to clarify their thoughts. In some cases they ventured off into more "entertaining" discussions like political agendas than discussion on nuclear war.

This panel, unfortunately did very little to prove the legitimacy that television event could bring to one of the most serious and grave threats to humanity's existence or to serious discourse in general. In totality, it reveals what potent weapon mass destruction television is and how even a solemn dialogue about the potential end of human civilization was reduced to mere sound bytes. Television should never have been elevated to such a pedestal.

5. It Diminishes Our Knowledge

Knowledge is the single greatest author of power and influence in society. Some people wield great sums of it, and others are great manipulators of their abundance of information. Knowledge has become another victim of the encroaching dramatization of truth through the disease that has infected our education system. It is clear the use of resources meant to make education more "entertaining" have hindered rather than enabled a more effective form of education to improve the overall intelligence and perceptiveness of society.

Education was first subversively attacked by a television program that was seen as the first great achievement of academic themed programming. This program featured bright vibrant felt characters whom were talking birds, blue monsters, and math-loving vampires. You might have guessed the program by now and if you said Sesame Street you are right. Why am I picking on Sesame and the fun-loving characters generations have come to know and love? Well, that is the first major issue is that Sesame Street has become the heralded quality "entertainment" apotheosis of educational programming. Instead of a good book, or the written history or geography lesson, Sesame Street occupies the lives of kindergartners and preschoolers. Sesame Street reduces essential academic knowledge to the "entertainment themed" package of modern television. (Pg. 142-143, Postman)

Neil Postman introduced a standard of faux pas "three commandments" of education television. The first is "thou shalt have no prerequisites" This commandment banishes the requirement of knowledge of previous episodes and information in context. The idea that knowledge and learning as a continuous phenomenon becomes undermined by television and social media in general. Second, "thou shalt induce no perplexity." Gone are the days when academic lessons are meant to provoke thought, engagement, or worst of all enduring interest to understand more. Lessons are manufactured into soulless bytes that are easily digestible and create "...contentment, not growth...." (Pg. 148, Postman) Lastly, perhaps the greatest of the commandments for entertainment modeled education "thou shalt avoid exposition like the ten plagues of Egypt." To explain, analyze, critique, or refute claims in the entertainment education world is to immediately create disinterest. It is seen as the very manifestation of "boring normal education." The fact someone may have to invest energy or their attention span longer than 30 minutes a program or worse a written assignment is horrifying!

Why would education remain in the dark ages such as written assignments or requiring analytical essays to provoke thought and introspection. Is that not the education from archaic times? We are in the future and our methods of education must become a electronically and entertainingly television-style fanfare to make education "fun." What effect does this new system seem to be having now? Here is a quick examination of the national standings as of 2015: The average for twelfth grade students at or above proficiency in Math was 25%, Reading 37%, Science 38% (Physical) and 37% (Life/Biological), and U.S. History for 8th graders was around 18% depending on the focus of history when surveyed between 2013-14. There were about 4 percentage point increases in the humanities like history and Writing, and 5-10% in the Sciences in recent years. Not very hopeful for our "innovative" and "groundbreaking" system we have created.

So, with the abysmal results what can we do to reverse the damages that have been dealt to our educational, societal, and journalistic integrity?

Where do we go from here?

Perhaps the great solution to this systemic problem lies within addressing the nature of its existence. What I mean by this is understanding the difference between the two often-mentioned future nightmare scenarios known as the "Huxleyan" and "Orwellian" dystopia. The great science fiction writer George Orwell predicted a society in which free-thought, movement, and liberty would be expunged and society would no longer be allowed to read or hold unique opinions. This never became a global threat and the prophecy of 1984 was never fulfilled. Instead, an older more sinister threat to freedom of thought and intellectual rigor is becoming more pervasive.

Aldous Huxley, another great science fiction mind warned of a world where no one had to ban books or thoughtful mediums of education and discourse. Instead, this society had become so consumed with its own entertainment and amusement that it had been lulled to sleep by its devices. Instead, their gadgets, toys, smartphones, social media pages, status updates, blogs, YouTube channels, and television commercialism made them slaves to their entertainment and amusement. They had no need to ban free-thought because they had made it irrelevant and non-existent in a super-hedonistic world where people are engineered to be idiots. We must recognize that this is our own doing and stop it before it destroys us.

Let us start by recognizing our media for what it is: entertainment. And recognize the written documents and digital versions of the written word as discourse that is truly substantive. Without it, we become subject to the tyranny of television style news and are subject to its bondage. Let us endeavor to constantly remind ourselves that at its core image-based mediums are only stimulants for entertainment and our amusement not sources of intelligent thought. We have to continually remind ourselves of this until we have no more energy to remind ourselves. We owe it to ourselves and the next generation to fight for the mental and spiritual health for their world.

Thank you for taking the time to read this through its entirety! I apologize for the lengthiness, but I hope you find it worthwhile and thought-provoking!