Propaganda revolution

Consumers have loyalty beyond reason despite the facts. It IS not because they are you stupid, blind, or heartless, but largely because they are uninformed. When people are uninformed they do not always have the means to make accurate decisions. Sometimes people know that they do not have all of the information and they ARE OK WITH THAT. But
IGNORANCE IS DANGEROUS when a consumer believes that they have all of the facts when they do not. This is where I believe that advertising ties into politics. Whenever something is being promoted, the ultimate goal is to sell it. Sometimes products are being sold, but in the case of politics it is p o l i t i c i a n s that ARE up for sale. People must be able to buy into a politician in the same way that they buy into a product. Whether or not A particular p o l i t i c i a n IS yoUr BEST choiCe DOESN'T MATTER as long as the voter believes the politician is the best choice.
As consumers and voters we are faced with incredibly important DECISIONS that are often made based on the results of narrowcasting. (ARE NOT DECISIONS AT ALL)

This “divide and conquer” method of PUBLIC MANIPULATION was demonstrated in the film, “The Persuaders” when members of a democratic campaign approached a poor African-American woman and showed her video clips of poor African-Americans suffering. By giving this woman proof that her world requires change, the campaign sparked the woman’s interest.
Narrowcasting can be looked at in different ways. In one sense, the “agent” that narrowcasts IS doing the audience a favor by focusing on the issues that are in their interest. The audience wastes less time sorting through information about issues that do NOT concern them, therefore allowing them time to focus on the issues that personally affect them.
People like Frank Luntz and Walter Lippmann make this process seem ethical and even somewhat NECESSARY. In “The Disenchanted Man”, Lippmann empathizes With thE poor uneducated public. “No newspApeR rEports his environment so that he can grasp it; no school has taught him how to imagine it; his ideals, often, do NOT fit with it,” (37). Although this is true, and people cannot often see the direct relation to government and their own lives, this mentality reduces people to SHEEP. It basically says that the only responsibility anyone has is to cast a vote for whoever herds them in the “right” direction.

Take a look at the current presidential race. It began with nearly 20 people, possibly more. The clear front-runners were Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. In December Republican candidate Mike Huckabee went from being virtually unknown to a household name. Why? Because news networks like CNN and Fox News began to talk about him, therefore promote him. People who watch Fox News hear his name and associate him with their side. People who watch CNN hear his name and think he might be a threat. Either way, the option/threat of Mike Huckabee that was non-existent last summer, became An oveRnight nEws story. Suddenly he was winning delegates. But just as fast as the media pumped him up they brought him down, encouraging him to drop out of the race. Suddenly, he was losing votes.

My point is, when directions are already decided “for the good of the public”, THE PUBLIC LOSES ITS VOICE and must go in one direction or the other. “Before a mass of general opinions can eventuate in executive action, the choice is narrowed down to a few alternatives,” Lippmann states. “The victorious alternative is executed not by the mass but by individuals in control of its energy” (40). This practice has resulted in an election season that is nearly over, with front-runners that were chosen for us not by us, therefore defeating the point of democracy in the first place.
Lippmann claims that people are apathetic and do not truly care about what is going on in the world because it does not directly effect them (37). He later explains that there is not a man in the world who can know everything about every issue; therefore they should not be plagued with the responsibility of determining their own life. They do not have the means to do so (39). Because giving people information about their own world would be too daunting, people are kept in the dark and in a herd.
It is undeniable that there are people who simply do not care about the quality of the product they buy or the politician they vote for. For whatever reason, not everyone values “the bigger picture”. BUT to deny people the right to information is to deny them the right to think. In a perfect world for politics and consumerism, people would blindly believe what ISfed to them, questioning nothing, and believing that EVERYTHING is done in their best interest. But if all people acted this way, change would never come about. REVOLUTIONS would NEVER be fought, dictatorships would never END, and IN all likelihood the United States of America would not exist.

LOYALTY DESPITE THE FACTS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNINFORMED. SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE OK WITH THAT. BUT IGNORANCE IS DANGEROUS WHENEVER POLITICIANS ARE FOR SALE. WHETHER A POLITICIAN IS BEST DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS THE VOTER BELIEVES THE POLITICIAN IS THE BEST CHOICE. DECISIONS BASED ON NARROWCASTING ARE NOT DECISIONS AT ALL. PUBLIC MANIPULATION IS NOT NECESSARY. WE ARE NOT SHEEP. PEOPLE WHO WATCH FOX NEWS AND PEOPLE WHO WATCH CNN ARE LOSING. THE PUBLIC LOSES ITS VOICE WITH FRONT-RUNNERS CHOSEN FOR US NOT BY US, DEFEATING DEMOCRACY. PEOPLE ARE APATHETIC. IT IS UNDENIABLE. BUT THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS EVERYTHING. REVOLUTIONS NEVER END IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.