[kami321]

We all know how this works in market economics with stock market and consumer confidence - the better public opinion is about the economy, the better is the economy. In general. But I'm not sure how specific it goes.

For example I recently read a fictional book in which some four semi-rich guys from "Che Media" advertising company almost caused an economic crisis in Russia by spreading rumors that the 2 biggest Russian banks were having problems and were about to go out of business. Once they managed to get a reporter from a respected business newspaper heavily drunk and convinced him to publish a story confirming these rumors, all hell broke lose and the next morning there were already crowds of people in front of both banks demanding withdrawal. And then the banks really started having problems, and the official newspapres and channels picked it up and also started predicting a crisis and discussing the consequences. The fate of the banks and of the economy was just barely saved when one of the banks filed a successful lawsuit against the author and editor of that business newspaper.
The question here is: how possible is this? How possible is it to really undermine the economy by spreading such false rumors about it?

Also, is seems to me that this works not only in the field of economics but in other issues too. For example in the interwar years Germany was extensivly villified and blamed much more than it deserved for a war that it really helped to start as much as everyone else. The Germans tolerated it for a while, but eventually elected NSDAP, which turned out to be pretty much a representative of the things that world-war-1 Germany was wrongly blamed for.

And it does seem to be a rather persistent case that when the people have to endure beeing villified for wrong reasons, they really do turn into villians.

So it seems to me that at least on certain occasions media really does shape reality.

[Shannonnn]

The question here is: how possible is this? How possible is it to really undermine the economy by spreading such false rumors about it?

With the media being the heavy influence it is, I think it's definitely possible. Think about how many millions of people watch the news and believe every word, every ticker, and every flashing screen of information. Anything a 'reputable' source delivers can't be wrong. Right? If some were to create some bullshit lie that could potentially cause mass pandemonium and somehow air it on TV or print it in papers, people would go running for the hills; no doubt in my mind. So I do believe it's possible in theory, though I don't think it would be as easy as the book portrays it to be (or so it seems to).

For example in the interwar years Germany was extensivly villified and blamed much more than it deserved for a war that it really helped to start as much as everyone else.

Propaganda at its best. A good example of how easy it is to fall into following the popular opinion. Again, it's amazing how much people will believe if it's being presented through major media. Who really stops to question what they believe are the 'facts'?

So it seems to me that at least on certain occasions media really does shape reality.

Yes. It goes full-circle. People believe what they want to believe. Usually fear-mongering wins in this instance, so panic ensues and spreads.

[Theodore]

The problem is, "the media" (an overgeneralised bogeyman many like to use) doesn't exist independently of humans. Media are simply another way for an individual or (much more commonly) group to influence society.

Weimar is a good example of this. The back-stab legend, promoted by the former ruling circles and military cliques, was more responsible for the rise of Nazism than the blame placed on Germany (fascism also developed in Italy, which was an ally of the Entente).

[kami321]

The problem is, "the media" (an overgeneralised bogeyman many like to use) doesn't exist independently of humans.

Of course. The mass media in most countries is directly or indirectly under business control and is subject to market forces whose rules and commands it unquestionably obeys. I'm not disputing that. I'm only trying to determine approximately how much effect on reality rather than just public opinion, the media has. Because another one of the fiction books I've read recently (not the same one as with the "Che Media" but similarly themed) was a total conspiracy theory which suggested that some of the most important politicians don't even exist in real life, they exist only on TV and the internet, designed in a special lab called "interbank committee for information technologies and telecommunications". That obviously was an exaggerration, and I don't even think that the author actually believed in it.. But still, the book led to some thoughts on the subject.

(fascism also developed in Italy, which was an ally of the Entente).

But that one didn't come to power democratically and I'd say it relied more on the fear of a leftist influence/takeover than nationalism.

as easy as the book portrays it to be (or so it seems to).

Actually in the book the banks tried to fight back in similar ways, they made public statements and bought journalists to reassure the public. The problem was that the public hysteria was difficult to stop just with reassuring statements and statistics. It took until the court procedure against the unlucky journalist convicted him guilty that they were finally able to calm down the public (already having suffered termendous losses though).

[Galoredk]

The way I see it, TV took over where we left the church in the late middle ages, as a provider of new and a guideline to how to live your life and what to believe.

Back in those days, people used to go to the church to get the news from other parts of the world and thus the church had quite a significant power when it came to what people knew as truth.

The TV/News media has up through the latter part of the 20th Century been our only "source of truth" and thus humankind was lead to believe that comunism was inherently evil, that War was something heroic, that one man killed Kennedy etc etc
Furthermore we have adapted our basic ideas of what is attractive, acceptable and admirable from the media stereotypes and as such society has become a mirror on the media. People still today believe what they see on the news jsut like they believed in God in the middle ages. Authority can make people believe anything.

Today, fortunately we are moving towards globalisation of information through the internet. This means that propaganda is made ever more complex. You can not just produce a lie and expect noone to challenge that or find out. The globalisation might not change our ideas of beauty ideals or acceptance of the diverse, but it will more than likely help us accept that there is no unified truth and that we are all as much alike as we are different.

I see media as the most powerful form of brainwashing available. If a tv show can change the way you want to live, eat, look and feel without suggesting that you should in fact do these things, then it has become a vessel for mind control.

If this is good or bad, I do not know. To a certain extent I like that we are becoming more aware of ourselves, that women and men are more attractive than ever before and that we can unite against causes that are seemingly evil/bad. Just remind yourself that what you are looking for is not "the truth" but a path to self fullfilment.

[Citizen J]

Human attention focuses on movement. Ferris Statee University, in helping it's faculty to present more effective lectures, recognizes this fact and advises:

Recent research at the National Institute of Mental Health conducted by Peter Jensen concluded, "Extensive exposure to television and video games may promote development of brain systems that scan and shift attention at the expense of those that focus attention."

Secondly, the earlier children acquire a passive TV habit, the more likely attention span will not develop normally.

Since the images change rapidly so does the shift of the child's attention.( Vincent Ruggerio, A Guide to Critical Thinking)

Contrast this externalized control of attention with the internal control required while participating in a self-directed play activity. The child, not a scriptwriter or producer, determines how long he or she will attend to individual tasks.

The current generations’ expectation is to be entertained—saying they should not be this way is not the answer.

Source

Today, we are now into the fifth generation of television and movie watchers. We are not taking our media practically everywhere we go. It's not suprising that our brain development would also adjust to accomodate this form of media.

Does our media influence us? To a level of which you have no idea. Our media abstractly controls our behavior. When I was still in primary school, I remember some consortium of television and movie executives come out with the statement that there was no evidence that repeated violence on TV made anyone more violent in real life. I thought about that for a second and realized that either A) they are lying, or B) they have fraudulently taken billions of dollars from corporations on the premise that repeated advertising has any effect upon our buying habits.

Think about it. Why would $billions of dollars be spent on something that simply does not work?

Behold the media today - turn on the TV news and what do you see? Terror, death and destruction. Every day, it's the same old terror death and destruction. UC Berkely and Standford Univ. both did studies that demonstrate that repeated exposure to emotionally upsetting material desensitizes the human to the emotional upset. This fact is at the core of the most popular method of helping people overcome phobias. So now we have a media that shows us tens of thousands of murders and tens of thousands of violent acts before we reach the age of 18. What effect do you expect this to have on the human psyche? Just what are we being desensitized to and why?