Ted Talks: Briefs Changing Our World For Better and For Worse

TED Talks are something so sophisticated, yet simple. Informative, yet controversial at times. Short in length, but powerful in information and delivery. They cover a variety of topics from medicine to engineering to sports to human trafficking. Truly, there is not much off limits when it comes to TED Talks. We have seen TED Talks from some of the most influential people in the world and virtually no names off the street who have a powerful message and something unique to say.

TED Talks most definitely have a purpose and serve a purpose in our world today. It sheds the light on a collection of issues and topics in a much simpler and shorter way than sitting in a class or reading an entire novel for hours at a time to retrieve information. The model started as a conference in 1984 and has been held annually since. However, the model has expanded and many conferences and forms of Ted are now hosted including podcasts, shows, and various other forms of media which allow information to be shared and stories to be told.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

While each medium TED uses is effective in its own right, the short brief system speaking to an audience seems to be the first thing people think of when it comes to TED. Oftentimes, people will also think of the terms persuasion and propaganda when it comes to TED, with persuasion being a more likely fit.

“The scientific study of the process of social influence” (Cialdini, 2004) is a strong definition of exactly what persuasion is. Propaganda can be defined as “the spreading of information in support of a cause. It’s not so important whether the information is true or false or if the cause is just or not, it’s all propaganda,” (Vocabulary.com, 2021). Meaning, just because the word propaganda does have a negative connotation in many people’s eyes does not mean propaganda is only used for negative purposes.

In the case of TED, propaganda is used for true and sincere purposes. The tactics also tie into persuasion because the speaker is trying to persuade social change or a re-examination many of times of how we think about the topics or issues that are being presented in the TED Talks or using any form of the TED model.

One thing TED unquestionably stands for is trying to get rid of the people that fall into the third-person effect category. These are the people that think a lot of things in life do not affect them and become more of a bystander than taking action on something they think needs fixed. One way to change these individuals perceptions is to show how it affects them or someone close to them.

Third-Person Effect And It’s Appearance During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The third-person effect is something that is prevalent in our lives today and has been for a very long time. With the expansion of media and opportunities to persuade and share propaganda, people can see the third-person effect taking shape in increased ways.

What this effect boils down to is certain individuals believe that the messages from the media do not apply to them, or apply less to them. These people believe the messages only apply to others around them or apply to them in a much more serious way (Salwen & Dupagne, 1999). These people believe that others will be more influenced by these messages and want less of these messages to be seen and heard because they do not think it applies to them.

“In the view of those trying to evaluate the effects of a communication, its greatest impact will not be on “me” or “you,” but on “them” the third persons. From the standpoint of a propagandist or other persuasive communicator, on the other hand, the third persons are those who are in some way concerned with the attitudes and behavior of the ostensible audience. Indeed, the propagandist may try to manipulate the behavior of these third persons by apparently seeking to influence someone else,” (Davison, 1983).

When thinking about it, I have indirectly been talking about the third-person effect all semester long. I am a person who is consistently a third-person that propagandist and media want to sway. I fall in the middle and stay out of situations and debates that do not involved me. Obviously, the two juggernauts of the political world of the United States hate this. They want everyone on their side and try to make advances on the middle.

This is exactly what Davison says in his quotes from his writing as he says they try to get to the third-person by affecting or directly reaching out someone who is in the life or the community of the third-person. Truly, it seems like the third-person can be applied to the third-parties from my opinion. There is the Green Party which wants all sorts of environmental changes in policy in the United States. There is the Libertarian Party which wants government to stop playing such a huge role in so many of our decisions and actions. There is also the Tea Party which seeks to limiting spending by the government overall. Pretty much, these are the third-person the two major parties would want to influence and change.

However, the bigger picture to be focused on is the concept itself. This idea of the third-person effect has reared its ugly head so many times over the last couple years in a variety of forms. People who are not getting the COVID-19 vaccines and boosters because they believe their health is so great, people voting for Joe Biden and his campaign who are rich just because he presented himself as nicer person than Trump and Biden’s policies would not affect them, and this idea has even come out when it comes to unemployment. They see their co-workers and others out in the world struggling and they continued to sit on unemployment instead of going to make a difference in the world.

Easily, the most traceable example takes the form of COVID-19. How many times have we heard and see people say they are not taking it because they believe it is their right and their health is just fine? There are too many to count. These people have utterly ignored if they know people who have died, if they know people who have survived and gotten super sick, and even ignored the wishes of family members, doctors, and employers to get vaccinated or take measures to lessen their chances of getting sick.

People think they are invincible when it comes to COVID-19 in some cases still, but they are not. They sit back and let the world continue to go on and they are doing nothing to prevent spread or help themselves get less sick. Some call them self-centered, but there is another argument that it is their right and if people are afraid of them, stay clear of them and take preventive measures themselves.

For reference, we will not know how many of these 87 percent of people thought they were immune to COVID-19 or it would never get them, but there is unquestionably some that thought it. It is not even a debate (Haddad, 2021). Sometimes, we are all guilty of being a third-person or a “bystander” as this could also be categorized. Some things really are much easier to let go of than others. However, when it comes to health, doing what YOU as an individual think is best should not be sacrificed unless it truly is illegal or threatens someone else’s rights.

How Individuality Flipped to Mass Movement and Fast; Conforming is Not Always Good

In life, as hard as we try and as much as we might want it to be this way, we are not all created equal. In the Deceleration of Independence, it states that “all men are created equal”. While this is a great thought, it is pretty much just a phrase at this point. The idea was that all men could grow up and have good careers, good jobs, heck, even become president. However, this document was written in the 1770’s when non-whites and only men really got a say in the United States.

What awful times this had to have been. However, people did not know any different. Likely, they wanted more, and thank goodness they have gotten it. Women have so many more rights, and black people are no longer viewed as just a piece of property and more money coming in. It was truly a sick way of life. It is a great thing we have moved on for so many reasons.

However, in the 1770’s, most people in the 13 colonies were concerned with a mass movement to gain independence. This then flipped in the civil war when they were feuding over the nation for various reasons. There were two mass movements of people both fighting for what they felt was right. Since, there have been other notable mass movements like the Holocaust, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, and the rise of communist and socialist states throughout the world.

What do all of these events have in common? They have in common that you conformed, or else. Yes, you risked your life if you felt differently. You had to be careful who was trusted and what was said in many of these situations, or your life literally could have hung in the balance.

The good news for many of us is we are free Americans who did not have to confirm to something if we did not believe in it. At least for a long time we did not have to. Beginning in 2020, labels and confirming took such grips on people for what their view was on the pandemic, the elections, economics, and other principles of life. Each major party tried to get as many people as possible to confirm to their antics, and unsurprisingly, many who were on the fence before picked a side.

Now, with a change of party, more confirming is continuing to happen, but not all of it is by choice. Whether it be by employers, family members pressure, or from the depths of social media, people are giving in and are not fighting as hard for individuality and personal liberties as they once did. Why might this be? There are a few theories and examples of why this could be happening.

Before entering into that, it is important to note that mass movements always has some agenda behind it. There is at least one person or a group of people who are trying to make sure this movement does in fact happen. W. Lance Bennett and Shanto Iyengar co-authored an article called A New Era of Minimal Effects? The Changing Foundations of Political Communication. In this article, the duo touches on mass movements. Particularly, they talk about mass movements of religion, politics, and consumer society. Unquestionably, these are three areas that persuasion and propaganda impact our lives most (W. Lance Bennett & Shanto Iyengar, 2008, p. 4-5). Additionally, they talked about government ideology and how these different forms ideals are different.

“Lippmann, who flirted with socialism under the mentoring of the great muckraking journalists, soon came to a very different understanding of the relations among press, publics, and government that landed him in the inner circle of Woodrow Wilson (and many of the succeeding presidents through Kennedy), with the perspective that popular opinion and consent had to be engineered in order to govern effectively,” (W. Lance Bennett & Shanto Iyengar, 2008, p. 9).

How Propaganda Can Cause Alterations in our Minds

Did anyone see that Kyle Rittenhouse trial? Pretty crazy stuff, right? Especially when the media and celebrities are the ones that helped to cause alterations in people’s minds about what truly happened that night.

No, I am no pro Rittenhouse, I am pro justice system. They did their job. The jury made the decision based on the evidence collected. To call Rittenhouse or any of these three people who were shot heroes is absolutely wild. Nothing any of these four individuals did was heroic. Simply, it was a situation that should have been avoided entirely.

What it comes down to is people shouldn’t have been rioting, the police should have had more help, citizens should not have been compelled to show up that night, citizens should not have threatened Rittenhouse’s life and well being, and Rittenhouse should not have had a gun or inserted himself into the situation.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets talk about how the media distorted people’s memories or withheld/censored important information that would have allowed citizens to form a more educated and thorough opinion on what the truth of the matter is. The honest to goodness truth is, because of the media clips I saw, I believed this kid was guilty. I did not see the clips prior to the trial that showed him being chased, screamed at, beaten, and having a gun pointed at him. Again, it was stupid for this kid to be in this position, but it was also stupid for these guys to swing at him with a skateboard, point a gun at him, beat him, or chase him when he is trying to flee.

The attached video below (Gutenschwager, 2020) shows the full nearly two minute clip of Rittenhouse trying to get away while a mob of people are screaming to get him and not let him get away. Rittenhouse falls over and people start to jump him. There was a gun in the hands of one of the men who jumped him along with two others who were starting to use physical force to beat him. As a result, Rittenhouse shoots a couple shots, gets back to his feet, and goes back to fleeing the scene as police and law enforcement head to the scene. He has a gun on him, but he keeps his hands up and gets out of the way so the law enforcement can go to the scene ahead.

The next article is about pronouncing Rittenhouse a terrorist almost a year ago before the trial occurred. That is their right to do so, but it seems like they were no fully educated on the entire scenario. Additionally, Colin Kaepernick and Kyle Rittenhouse absolutely should not be seen as heroes. Just two men who are doing what they felt they had to do. The real heroes of this world are the ones that go to work every day and are the backbone of this country.

Back to the tweets cancelling Rittenhouse collected by Emma Colton for a Washington Examiner article (Colton, 2020), so many celebrities did not even let it get to trial or bother to research the entire event further. They just called it all sorts of nasty things, but again, this is what they were shown and told from others. Below are some of the tweets pronouncing Kyle Rittenhouse a terrorist before he went to trial and all the evidence was uncovered and put out for everyone to clearly see.

Public diplomacy and the United nations

There are two quotes that come to mind every time there is a revolution of some kind regardless of it being a bloodless one, or one with ppa death count as high as some wars have reached. The first quote is attributed to the dictator that was in charge of the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin “If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics”. This is a great example of using spin to control a bad situation brought on by your own poor decisions. For a great deal of those living in the soviet union death was a constant thing surrounding them from things like poor living conditions to starvation, and even war.

The use of spinning facts to benefit a government was one of the things that the soviet union used public relations to accomplish their political goals. The quote does an excellent job at conveying sorrow at the loss of life that was being reported to him when he was Commissar of Munitions. The power of spin is that what he said mutated over time to the quote we now attribute to him “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic”. By showing the acknowledgement that death is a tragedy while simultaneously being cold to the amount of death that could occur in some people’s eyes would make him a great leader. A hallmark of a good public relations campaign is the ability to say everything while also saying nothing allowing the consumer to take what they want from the statement.

“One Murder made a Villain, Millions a Hero” this is a quote from Beilby Porteus’ work titled Death: A Poetical Essay. Here we see a simpler version of what may have inspired Joseph Stalin’s quote since the original text was written back in 1759. Although this quote conveys a different set of interpretations for the consumer to take away for this quote you clearly take away the message that one violent act is bad, but a revolution might entail millions. A crazed lunatic might take a life, and think that they have changed the world when in reality they have done nothing to create change. Real revolutions more often than not results in the deaths that are closer to that like a world war.

The power of public relations is on full display when you see the propaganda during and after a horrific atrocity has been committed like the genocide of Rwanda. “What made propaganda particularly effective was the simultaneous dehumanisation of Tutsi and the legitimisation of their extermination”. These prolonged efforts to make the minority group seem like less than those who would call themselves heroes. Those that would eventually scream that “the graves are not yet full” when referring to the massacre that was being committed against the Tutsi. Powerful propaganda can make regular people become monsters, or turn people on the edge away from the precipice towards a better outcome than massacre. For those in the region these seeds of hatred towards each other had existed for generations with modernity seeing a fanning of the flames.

These quotes come to mind whenever institutions like the United Nations must make a tough decision like they are currently facing with Afghanistan. For the most part every country has a representative at the United Nations, but that becomes problematic when the representative comes from a country that is being controlled by what many would consider a terrorist organization. There is a reason that North Korea has a seat at the United Nations even though they have made several threats to nuke the United States of America. The primary reason of this is to keep the lines of communication open even with those that would do harm to other members of the United Nations. With these back channels in place two countries that are at war can find a way to publicly save face while privately trying to find a diplomatic solution to public issues. However, by allowing the Taliban appointed representative to be a part of the United Nations the world would be legitimizing their rule of Afghanistan. What needs to happen whether we like it, or not the only way for the rest of the world to have any power in the future is by letting them into the United Nations. It’s not ideal that terrorist be given anyway to legitimize their organization, but there isn’t choice at the moment other than causing even more of incident by denying them their seat

How Media Persuades Us

The mainstream media is very smart aren’t they?  They know just what to say, how to say, and when to say what exactly gets the hungry public’s attention.  They know how to push our buttons, pull on our heart strings, outrage, anguish, and make us feel like we need to get involved.  For that matter, they can make us feel that we shouldn’t get involved.  How is power like this achieved in a non-brutal fashion? One may immediately think the media uses tactics of “shock and awe” to get our attention.  This can be effective, obviously, but it runs much deeper than that. Like anything else, the repeated use of one specific tactic runs its course and becomes more accepted and “normal”.

The probing of what persuades and drives us to do what others want or believe what others say, particularly from the media, begins on a basic and primary level. Robert Cialdini (The Science of Persuasion) discusses six psychological tendencies that matter with regards to persuading another (reciprocation, consistency, social validation, liking, authority, and scarcity). Furthermore, Lazarsfeld and Merton discuss how the mass media serves three primary social functions, status-conferral, the enforcement of social norms, and the well-known narcotizing dysfunction. Blending these two proposals can provide an explanation into how the mass media functions in an efficient and effective fashion.

Status conferral by the media is more present than ever; especially in the social media age (Lazarsfeld and Merton probably had no idea!). Instant tweets, photos, and clips, that one has arrived or is going to an event is common place in our society.  We are made to feel this is important; the media bestows this onto us.  If they are covering this event it surely must be a big deal.  We are socially validated when we see others noticing, snapping pictures, and gathering around the crowd at what is going on.   The handsome and beautiful people reporting these stories may also give us a feeling of liking and wanting to believe and accept what they say.  They look the part, are well dressed, well spoken, and intelligent.  They have positions of authority and power which the masses respond to favorably.  These broadcasts, furthermore, can be dubbed as “special editions” or some other kind of one-time event so it should be followed by the public closely and with importance.  This feeling of scarcity may also prompt us to tune in and listen (and believe) what we are seeing.

The media also functions to inform us of what is acceptable, but more importantly what is not. As Lazarsfeld and Merton state, “publicity closes the gap between private attitudes and public morality” (Lazarsfeld and Merton-“Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action”). The media expose deviations to the public view forcing the public to take action on what may be privately tolerated. Social norms are created in this way and media continually perpetuates. Mass media applies the same Cialdini concepts appropriately in their perpetuation.  We feel compelled to reciprocate our feelings of outrage or disdain to certain media events.  The importance of consistency is at work, as well, with forming our social norms. We generally want to be consistent in what we say we believe or will do.  An example would be through polls or questionnaires from media outlets, they serve as a function to commit us to being consistent.  We affirm we believe a certain way and we find it important to act out in the same fashion moving forward.  We are then socially validated by seeing the results of these polls and feel satisfied when the majority results agree. Other tendencies apply as well and are interrelated.

The third concept discussed by Lazarsfeld and Merton regards the narcotizing dysfunction.  I find this particularly interesting because at the time this was composed, the concept was quoted as having “little explicit comment.” I think it’s safe to say that this has changed completely with the constant bombardment of today’s 24/7 media coverage, instant access, pc’s and mobile device connectivity, and other on demand social media outlets.  How often do you watch or listen to a media report that is particularly disturbing and you feel overwhelmed?  It’s played continuously with no end.  You feel there is nothing you can do to make it better; this is the erosion of morality in the world we live in and just makes you feel numb. Surely we have all experienced this?  This is the narcotic effect that was discussed over 65 years ago—long before the media frenzied world we live in today.  We are constantly flooded with information which keeps us from really ever trying to do anything about it, we are actually distanced from it.  Lazarsfeld and Merton state, “Yet, quite apart from intent, increasing dosages of mass communication may be inadvertently transforming the energies of men from active participation into passive knowledge.”   It seems quite prophetic and more appropriate now more than ever.  The Cialdini tendencies can be applied here as well. We are reaffirmed by these tendencies of others, who feel the same way about the bombardment of media and become simply a consumer of information.  The media, the certain authority figure, relays this to us, we respect and heed to what they have to say.   We stay consistent and socially validated knowing the issues of the day, but accept being able to do nothing about them.

The media clearly knows which tactics work and how to get their point across (and believed).  Do we, as informed citizens, have other means and methods to decipher and determine what is important, moral, and just?  How do we separate and truly think for ourselves?

 

 

Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton- “Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action”- 1948

Robert Cialdini- “The SCIENCE of Persuasion”- 2004

 

Why are you lying?

In thinking about politics, we would be naive to think that we are given full truths.  Within political debates, it is the one who “appears” to be the lesser of the liars who will come out on top.  Are there political candidates who have made it without giving us some untruths? Maybe, but I would be skeptical toward those you claim to “never lie.”