I know what you're thinking; "you're beating a dead horse, quit while you're ahead". At least, one of you's thinking that; everyone else is thinking about, I don't know, drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll, or sitting quietly in a quiet room doing quiet things, with a quiet wife (or husband, or not) and quiet kids (or not), thinking about quieter things and looking forward to a quiet tomorrow. However, if you'll allow me to just sort of get to my point here, you'll find that you'll have learned at least one new thing today (even though it'll probably be useless, unless your life turns into some alternate version of "Slumdog Millionaire" and this is one of your flashbacks. In which case, hey, you got this. I'll expect a check in the mail).

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you should probably give the title a look. Just a suggestion. I'm talking about the media, the big "M". I'm not talking about "Slumdog Millionaire" but if you haven't seen that gem, then you should definitely check it out (that wasn't an advertising plug, but hey, if someone involved with the creation of the film wants to throw some of that sweet, sweet capitalism lifeblood my way, by all means, bury me in it).

I understand that most millennials don't exactly, well, read much. At least, it's not like they'll admit to it, and seeing as traffic signs (most of you don't even read those either) and late-night/early-morning sexting don't count, everyone is either allergic to the written word, a bookworm (greetings, fellow loser), or a moderate (you wishy-washy scumbag). For those who do read, you've probably heard about two classic pieces of dystopian literature: George Orwell's "1984" and Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." If you're one of the few people my age who have actually read either one or both of those novels, then you're in luck; you've done the reading and you can go home early. If you haven't, then buckle up, buddy, 'cause there's a pop-freakin'-quiz.

Now, though there are many differences between the two authors' novels, they do agree on a few aspects (I'll get to the differences in a bit, and I promise this is all relevant): the media is key in directly and indirectly influencing public opinion, and whoever controls the media controls, for the most part, public opinion. Except for those tin foil hats among you; you keep on keepin' on, you bleeding heart freedom fighters. Any telecommunications major could tell you that, but what some people fail to grasp are the parallels between these fictional settings and our world today. Most news outlets are owned by a handful of companies. That means newspapers, television news broadcasters, online journals, radio talk shows... basically everything. Probably even sky writing, who knows? In both novels, the central government controlled the media, and therefore controlled popular opinion. Every media outlet, regardless of their initial statements, has some sort of political leaning, even if they aren't aware of it themselves. If a certain media outlet is bought out, then their reach becomes an amplifier for the buyer's voice. Want an example? Anyone remember VICE? That thing you were super interested in because of the gritty, unfiltered, mostly unbiased stories they put out? They were bought out a while back by Rupert Murdoch, and in case you haven't noticed, they're not exactly subtle when it comes to their support of Hillary Clinton. Seriously, look at their political posts. They're either bashing Senator Bernie Sanders or slobbering over Clinton. It's a bit unsettling to see how quickly something can change. I realize that there are many writers who work for VICE, but there's no other explanation for the fact that the entirety of their content falls into two categories; Clintons campaign and taboo sexual fetishes. Go figure, right?

I love VICE, don't sue me.

Then there's the whole problem of specific issues in society being focused on that aren't necessarily the worst things going on; if you want an example, there's the transgender bathroom issue versus the sizable oil spill that nobody's talking about (more on that at a later time). There's basically three key things on the American mind at the moment: ISIS (or "ISIL", depending on how much you READ), the upcoming election, and the Transgender bathroom issue. I mean, seriously guys, come on.

Now for those differences; the first one’s fairly obvious, and I can almost guarantee that you’re either holding it in your hand right now, or it’s sitting in your pocket. No, it’s your phone (if you were thinking “phone”, then I’m sorry). In Huxley’s Brave New World, there existed a device that each and every citizen’s dwelling possessed which continuously broadcasted propaganda and doubled as a monitoring device. It also could never be deactivated and never stopped watching you. Sound familiar? To most people it would seem like some sort of cellphone-television hybrid. It certainly is a frightening thought to be possibly monitored at any time (really, THAT shirt). That’s one of the main reasons so many people were and still are up in arms over the legal issues between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Apple. Basically, the FBI requested Apple’s assistance in unlocking a cell phone that had some involvement with the terrorist attack earlier this year in San Bernardino, California, and Apple refused. So the FBI managed to get in, and now it’s a huge privacy issue. Just goes to show how something can change so quickly.

Huxley also focused on the use of pleasure to further strengthen control over the masses, whereas Orwell expounded upon the use of pain and fear (ooh, "expounded", that's a big word). To be more specific, Brave New World's "soma" (meaning "body"), the pill everyone took, was basically like ecstasy, and 1984 used propaganda and fear-mongering through continuous war to achieve a constant state of hyper-alertness among its citizens. So, the liberal prescription of pharmaceuticals would be soma, and the constant state of war that we've been in for about two decades would be sufficiently similar. Of course, you could also argue that lots of evil people have eaten and enjoyed a good steak (yum, death), and cows aren't inherently evil (their flatulence is though, damn).

Insert Hannibal’s “fava beans and a nice chianti” line here. Am I right? Right?

There aren't too many skeptics in today's day and age. Most people just eat up everything they're told to vomit it up later to their friends and loved ones to seem informed and knowledgeable. That has to change. There's a famous quote that goes something along the lines of "governments do not want intelligent citizens; they want citizens who will learn what they are told and keep it at that". I'm paraphrasing, and badly at that. I would look up the exact quote if there wasn't some weird dude across the street heckling me as I write this.

Now, I'm not saying you have to be an asshole and point out everyone's bull; just keep an open mind and do casual research. That's all it takes to be informed. Listen to both sides of any issue and keep your own morals out of any decisions. I myself am not a completely unbiased individual, but it helps to try.

Well, there you go. Some ideas that I thought were interesting enough to mention. Any "eureka" moments that I or anyone I know may have will be documented and shared, much to your enjoyment and/or annoyance.

Stay cl(ass)y, folks.