Remote control of free choice?

By Ursula Tillmann


    We are informed and see the world through our eyes as it presents itself. So we think. Our opinions are based on information of choice. So we believe. We can differentiate between the truth and a lie. So we assume. But perhaps we know less than our forefathers who had to figure it out by thinking for themselves.
    Freedom of speech in times of major television networks on the increase of dictating the opinions of headlines instead of reporting the news as it is, has changed all that for the worse. And we are left to choose with our remote TV-control who and what perhaps not to believe for another day.
   The messenger is meanwhile more important than the message. Just look at the network ratings and the choice of shows that flicker into North American households at prime time. We are not only being dumbed down around the clock, we are being addicted to thoughts and opinions of others who eventually take over what we assumed to be our free choice. And even worse:  The truth becomes the casualty of thought.
    Advertisements like “most trusted”, “reliable” and “honest” are constantly hammered into our minds by major television networks. The steady attack by those who “defend” our so called freedom of speech works and complacency  is on the increase. What we hear and see must be true, thus we trust somewhat. We fully trust at the end our own choice of channel, which we made with that remote control in our hand. We have the world at our fingertips. All we have to do is lean back - no foreplay of thoughts necessary.  
    So does the truth reveal itself and falsehood fades in a broader more open competition like the internet? Perhaps in part,  if we really know what to choose. Clicking the mouse instead of the remote control is a choice - an alternative given first priority meanwhile not only by the younger generation. In an attempt of blending individual differences of opinions - mostly refined by major networks from early childhood on, blogging has become much more popular than informative reading. This is the Zeitgeist we are living.
      Freedom of speech has become a part-time sport for opinions with little research, righteousness of self and often libelous statements which won’t be taken to court.  We blog instead of confronting live conversations. And we can’t be wrong, because others don’t know any better. Major TV networks are regrouping and are asking constantly for participation of bloggers and I-reporters, because it’s a market they can count on. Nazism at its best.
        We know it all - and yet nothing, but let’s post  it not only on private sites like Facebook, My Space and You Tube, but also on the blogs of prime time television newscasts. The result: We are now watering down even stronger the content and truth, which in the past - at least by ethical journalists - had to be confirmed by not less than three different sources of information.
    The very ideology of freedom of speech is becoming more and more a self-indulging means of defamation and opinionated briefs. Everybody blogs, but few read and inform themselves. What should be “blending individual differences”, as poet John Milton had envisioned, is now a divider of “my opinion or yours”.
   Somewhere in between the truth is lost and with it the conception of honest freedom of information, blogged down the drain by many who thought they knew better.