Modern societies consist of a dubious principle, because its achievements are increased and decreased at the same time. By expanding the division of tasks the holistic forces representing what is behind are on the decline. On the one hand, the amount of knowledge is growing; on the other, it becomes less and less manifest. Domains of knowledge pile up without resulting in a general sum of individually relevant information. Simply because its quantity is beyond individual capacity. As a consequence, sectorial information A can at best evoke confidence within sector B that A will not harm B. Especially technological innovations can not deny that faint feeling of uneasiness.
Nowadays it is the mass media which own the monopoly of linking social groups. They are meant to generate the public. And this public consists of leftovers – all you cannot attribute to the other expert sectors. For this reason we talk about public opinion rather than public knowledge. This is an immanent problem – neither the producing nor the consuming factors of public dicourse are endowed with insight into what is reported. Otherwise we could not call them the public. In short: The Public is the battlefield of dilettants such as you and me.
Knowledge provided by mass media is predominantly virtual. To put it more complicated: it is not autoptical. It is impossible to prove or refute if dog leashes have ceased to be regarded a useful instrument in Iraq, not even what is happening two blocks away at this very moment because that would mean one was not sitting in front of this text. So the seaming side of modern enlightenment is its growing demand for attention and trust. As we are forced to rely on other people, we are condemned to convert hope into guess that these other people (the experts) will do the right things. That is why modern enlightenment is increasingly dependent on confidence constantly searching for credibility.
Credibility means both competence and reliabilty. It is apalling to be reigned by faithful idiots as well as by cynical technocrats.But in our knpowledge based society we are more inclined to assume the publically
observed expert is competent (just because we cannot know better). And this means it is reliability that is the problematic factor.
But how to do the right things in public? How to appear credible under the present conditions? It goes without saying that our political representatives (as the embodied public actors) attach very much importance to that issue. The answer is difficult, since, unfortunately, public perception changes beyond predictability. Might dozens of PR consultants, demoscopes and spin doctors try to evoke a different impression: We are not dogs secreting saliva because someone rings a bell. And what is worse, public opinion has become aware that media reports create their own kind of reality: that politicians act differently depending on whether they communicate secretly or in public. And it is that person which lets us ignore that insight who is the one to gain consent. The extent of ignorance is called authenticity. Surprisingly, authenticity is time-bound; for instance, being authentical in the Third Reich has come totally out of fashion; especially public shouting does not generate confidence anymore.
Therefore is seems the requirements of authenticity have increased to a large degree; as a matter of fact, they cannot be
fulfilled anymore, because today two aspects interfere that can only be analytically but not factually separated:
A) the public person claiming to be authentical is to be the way he is –. In other words, he is to be a real person.
B) the public person claiming to be authentical is to appear to be the way he is. In other words, he is to be a media personality.
As soon as the intended effect comes into sight, as soon as one has to be real in front of observers, strategical conscience breaks in. The public person is aware that his authenticity is examined. As a consequence, he cannot be that kind of person he might be in private. So, the demand is paradoxical, because it mixes up publicity and privacy. And it is the fact that this is impossible that makes it that interesting. A public person is necessarily a performer, and the audience, the public, is prepared to equate him with a liar, to suspect the appearances are deceptive. Many media attacks on privacy are owing to the inspired efforts to look behind the mirror, to observe with the camera without the camera, to find out what person the personality is.
Once celebrities in politics and economy could faithfully consult media consultants (mostly journalist deserts) who gave the same kind of advice to any face and forgot that lifting the corner of the mouth looked in one case malicious, but in the other sly. Well, those times are over. Nowadays authenticity demands different strategies. Having invested some thought on that issue, the author has come to the conclusion that there are two some politicians are already applying:
1) They turn inquiries into their authenticity in a modest lesson on the topic of media image constraints. Motto: "As a journalist, you ought to be aware of your professional expectations. We both know how to play the game, after all."
2) They ostentatiously (!) take pains to appear to be as boring, unimaginative and rhetorically incompetent as possible. Motto: "Attention! I am real. After all, there are too many swindlers who bombard the public with oratorical unit constructions. I am so ... matter-of-fact."
Both strategies count on minus times minus making plus. Strategy 1 argues: Yes, I am real, because I admit I cannot be real. Strategy 2 prefers to deconstruct the image of competence the media create: Yes, I am real, because I am incompetent.
In sum: Is an authentical person someone who lies best? Not necessarily: Authenticity means believing one's own lies.
Nowadays it is the mass media which own the monopoly of linking social groups. They are meant to generate the public. And this public consists of leftovers – all you cannot attribute to the other expert sectors. For this reason we talk about public opinion rather than public knowledge. This is an immanent problem – neither the producing nor the consuming factors of public dicourse are endowed with insight into what is reported. Otherwise we could not call them the public. In short: The Public is the battlefield of dilettants such as you and me.
Knowledge provided by mass media is predominantly virtual. To put it more complicated: it is not autoptical. It is impossible to prove or refute if dog leashes have ceased to be regarded a useful instrument in Iraq, not even what is happening two blocks away at this very moment because that would mean one was not sitting in front of this text. So the seaming side of modern enlightenment is its growing demand for attention and trust. As we are forced to rely on other people, we are condemned to convert hope into guess that these other people (the experts) will do the right things. That is why modern enlightenment is increasingly dependent on confidence constantly searching for credibility.
Credibility means both competence and reliabilty. It is apalling to be reigned by faithful idiots as well as by cynical technocrats.But in our knpowledge based society we are more inclined to assume the publically
observed expert is competent (just because we cannot know better). And this means it is reliability that is the problematic factor.
But how to do the right things in public? How to appear credible under the present conditions? It goes without saying that our political representatives (as the embodied public actors) attach very much importance to that issue. The answer is difficult, since, unfortunately, public perception changes beyond predictability. Might dozens of PR consultants, demoscopes and spin doctors try to evoke a different impression: We are not dogs secreting saliva because someone rings a bell. And what is worse, public opinion has become aware that media reports create their own kind of reality: that politicians act differently depending on whether they communicate secretly or in public. And it is that person which lets us ignore that insight who is the one to gain consent. The extent of ignorance is called authenticity. Surprisingly, authenticity is time-bound; for instance, being authentical in the Third Reich has come totally out of fashion; especially public shouting does not generate confidence anymore.
Therefore is seems the requirements of authenticity have increased to a large degree; as a matter of fact, they cannot be
fulfilled anymore, because today two aspects interfere that can only be analytically but not factually separated:
A) the public person claiming to be authentical is to be the way he is –. In other words, he is to be a real person.
B) the public person claiming to be authentical is to appear to be the way he is. In other words, he is to be a media personality.
As soon as the intended effect comes into sight, as soon as one has to be real in front of observers, strategical conscience breaks in. The public person is aware that his authenticity is examined. As a consequence, he cannot be that kind of person he might be in private. So, the demand is paradoxical, because it mixes up publicity and privacy. And it is the fact that this is impossible that makes it that interesting. A public person is necessarily a performer, and the audience, the public, is prepared to equate him with a liar, to suspect the appearances are deceptive. Many media attacks on privacy are owing to the inspired efforts to look behind the mirror, to observe with the camera without the camera, to find out what person the personality is.
Once celebrities in politics and economy could faithfully consult media consultants (mostly journalist deserts) who gave the same kind of advice to any face and forgot that lifting the corner of the mouth looked in one case malicious, but in the other sly. Well, those times are over. Nowadays authenticity demands different strategies. Having invested some thought on that issue, the author has come to the conclusion that there are two some politicians are already applying:
1) They turn inquiries into their authenticity in a modest lesson on the topic of media image constraints. Motto: "As a journalist, you ought to be aware of your professional expectations. We both know how to play the game, after all."
2) They ostentatiously (!) take pains to appear to be as boring, unimaginative and rhetorically incompetent as possible. Motto: "Attention! I am real. After all, there are too many swindlers who bombard the public with oratorical unit constructions. I am so ... matter-of-fact."
Both strategies count on minus times minus making plus. Strategy 1 argues: Yes, I am real, because I admit I cannot be real. Strategy 2 prefers to deconstruct the image of competence the media create: Yes, I am real, because I am incompetent.
In sum: Is an authentical person someone who lies best? Not necessarily: Authenticity means believing one's own lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment