"Another is the dead Syrian child in the waters picture. The public shouldn't be swayed by one death. The very fact that these newspapers and this issue has gained so much interested based on that picture is wrong. In the same way the pictures of immigrants/asylum seekers running across the border is used on the opposite side this picture creates an environment where facts, statistics and a logical pragmatic approach becomes less possible."
People don't understand death, and when there's a lot of it they'll be even more likely to trivialize it. From a naive understanding of it, people, when at a distance, need it to be seen in a case by case basis instead of analyzing an entire field of corpses at once. When it's just numbers and statistics people trivialize it in the same line of thought as "collateral damage", while a single life lost can sway many from them suddenly throwing themselves into their scenario.
Sociology doesn't touch people the same way that Psychology can. They need to relate to the pain to understand it.
Of course this is not inherently a problem but a reality.
I don't see the mainstream news as some sort of carefully crafted propaganda for the current system but rather slow moving corporations who see how the public jumps on the bandwagon on issues such as KONEY2012 or whatever that lion was called. They satisfy the expectation of news being something entertaining and exciting. As they see it no one would care about some war in Africa, especially if they don't have pictures, people don't care about statistics. Nor do the majority do their democratic job of analyzing and informing the public on politician's policies.
I am optimistic though, parts of the internet are democratizing the world's news feed and agenda. This is not facebook or twitter they function on the same hierarchical principles as society.
I really have no argument with this. It is almost painfully obvious to anyone willing to take a step back from their myopia and take a real, honest look. It's good to continue to highlight this, I know, and hopefully it will generate a more powerful sentiment and grow into an actual movement or trend or meme (though I loathe to use the term).
The thing is, this truth has been known in some shape or form for quite a while. Media has long grown into a paradigm-factory, spitting out trends and pushing public opinion around with carefully-targeted tactics and manipulation. No news there. (Well, in fact, the news is part of this whole thing. It's hardly 'news' any more than it is 'sensationalist propaganda' but that's another topic entirely.) The difference we face in our current situation is the proliferation of the media and the access. It's sort of a runaway train, which means the vehicle the social engineers may have had driven before has taken on a mind of its own, getting harder to steer. This is actually cause for hope. With an upswell of chaos, there is chance for a truly beneficial mutation to have the chance to make it through any clashes and destructive calamity that may ensue. A little social Darwinism?
So, with this "insight" you share, the follow-up question is: "So what?" This pot needs to stop simmering and finally have a chance to boil over. Something should be done. Perhaps, though, with continued awareness more forcefully pushed, something will HAPPEN.
People understand death, but people don't associate statistics and facts with the abstraction of death and suffering. In that case it is easier for them to understand and empathize with a single well defined and vividly explained example rather then a number. That is hardly the same line of thought as trivializing "collateral damage" in fact it is the exact opposite, in order to act as a purely utilitarian driven, rational actor the person must discard the emotional appeals of pictures of dead children or "collateral damage".
However that's not the point, no one said taking the road of least resistance is the right thing. The fact of the mater is that if they seek to act morally and assume a stance of societal responsibility making judgments based on the emotional appeal rather then a more utilitarian approach is immoral (due to the opportunity cost and distortion of democracy I pointed out before). Expecting people to handle numbers with as high of a value as a picture of someone should be expected if these people seek to be moral.
Although I acknowledge that emotions are inherent in all dissensions and a basic input mechanism for people, I will tackle this question in a more general fashion. In some political questions a certain degree of emotionally based arguments are more relevant (due to these being to a higher degree moral questions) than others but again think of this in a more general fashion.
By "appealing to emotion" I mean using personalized examples (micro scale wise) to influence public opinion. Let me give you a few examples of what I mean (my working definition is quite vague).
Let's start with a few examples.
Donald Trump has a few textbook examples of what I mean. The examples of Mexican illegals doing horrendous crimes is an especially harmful one. Not only does he legitimize the idea the it is alright to generalize a ethnic/national group based on a few extreme cases, but it also distorts the reality of the situation and totally foregoes the responsibility to educate the votes on the facts(in perspective) issue.
Another is the dead Syrian child in the water picture. The public shouldn't be swayed by one death. The very fact that these newspapers and this issue has gained so much interest based on that picture is wrong. In the same way the pictures of immigrants/asylum seekers running across the border is used on the opposite side this picture creates an environment where facts, statistics and a logical pragmatic approach becomes less possible.
Using deaths as examples to saw the public is always wrong. Not only does it distract from the bigger picture (people die every day from things specific policies could stop) it trivializes the rest of human life's value. What do I mean by that? There is ALWAYS a opportunitycost for any publicity or policy. This means that when emotional examples merit an issue needing a solution the equal value of human life takes back stage.
We don't prioritize our goodwill/policies based on how many people we can help or save, we prioritize public opinion. This is not a problem so long as the two of those things perfectly correlate, emotional appeals undermine this. If public option on an issue is swayed based on a single case rather than the ('objective') facts and statistics (how many died and what can we do about it) this distorts that relationship.
The amount of publicity and political support a issue gets no longer rests on the facts and ability to help but rather what sort of emotional appeal the position can create and incite.
Another effect of this is the undermining of democracy and the concentration of power in the hands of politicians. They no longer need to choose to address issues which have a large effect on the population rather sense the voters merit emotional appeal rather than actual effect they can choose whatever issues they want so long as the emotional aspect of it is there.
Politics is no longer about solving large problems rather it is all about providing emotionally simple solutions to problems which you are able to sell to the masses (were selling to the masses is based on the emotional component).
I think the primary conundrum that has always seemed to arise is something like: "does society reflect itself in its chosen media, or does the media influence the society in its vanity?" It seems to function as a cyclical sort of feedback loop. And to distinguish the two as separate certainly allows for the manipulation of the situation, boxing and bordering a society into manageable chunks.
But again, despite the true nature of it, which has been done and which we're probably doing right now, to read it as conspiratorial is more of a fantasy than reality. I will probably go far afield in my ramblings, so let me offer an interesting clip of something Terence McKenna said that really puts it in a better light:
It's probably the funniest joke I've ever heard and I love it. XD
Perhaps this evidences me as being a bit slow to realize this, but this whole idea is guilty of its own accusations. If we "generalize" it runs the same risk that it will also push bias as fact. We CAN'T generalize. Motivation, history, demographic, current events, and much much more enter as variables. Not ALL appeals to emotion are ipso facto immoral. Can one perform immoral acts in pursuit of moral goals? Can something not be both moral AND immoral? Color and detail cannot be seen in pure, white light without refracting it. And how the image it reflects appears is in the eye of the beholder. The war out there is with ideology, right now. (In fact, when has it ever NOT been? Pre-language? Pre-civilization?) Society is a living organism, an ecosystem of organisms. It must fight its differentials to find it's equilibrium, with any and all means necessary.
Wherever reality is concerned, its generalization only serves to ignore specificity, uniqueness, and uncertainty.
I just don't think I can discuss matters like this, since it's complexity escapes my language (but not understanding).
FURTHER... It is interesting how singularity serves the purpose of generalizing, such as in the example of the picture mentioned, and similar tactics. However, it certainly highlights the power in commonality, but does nothing to exhibit how each individual actually feels.
This is a good source on politician policies.