Monday
Feb142005
Dogs watching television
Monday, February 14, 2005 at 3:00AM
By Ellen Ratner
Last week's news that the Federal Aviation Administration had 52 pre-9-11 warnings coupled with the news that the Bush administration not only failed to act, but failed to disclose their failure to act until after the presidential election, came as no surprise to someone who spends her days and nights in the presidential spin zone. The thing that did come as a surprise was that the government's failure to act on these warnings fell on deaf ears.
There was hardly a peep of outrage by the general public. This is alarming. It means that the American public is like dogs watching television when it comes to holding their government accountable for what amounts to either gross negligence or gross dereliction of duty. If this failure had been perpetrated by a U.S. soldier as opposed to a U.S. commander in chief, or staff member of the commander in chief, that soldier would be facing a court martial – no ifs ands or buts about it. And if that soldier had tried to obstruct evidence, as this administration did for obvious political gain, the key would have been thrown away.
I can understand perhaps why airline employees, who are now just struggling day by day to live on half of what they once made with no retirement and growing health-care costs, are keeping their heads down. They are, in a word, broken. But I don't understand why a nation that lost almost 3,000 people, billions of dollars in economic damages, started two wars and lost its reputation for justice in the world see no reason to cry foul at this news.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why the public simply has no appetite for any bad news about this administration was published in a Wall Street Journal article written by Sharon Begley on Feb. 4, 2005. The article explains why people believe a "fact" that fits their views even if it's clearly false. The article quotes a study that revealed that once Americans hear something, we keep believing it, even in light of incontrovertible evidence that the initial information was false. As the article explains:
"People build mental models," explains Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, Crawley, who led the study that will be published in Psychological Science. "By the time they receive a retraction, the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view, and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles." Therefore, he and his colleagues conclude in their paper, "People continue to rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and understand a subsequent retraction."
This explains why a majority of the people voted in the 2004 presidential election believed that Saddam Hussein was partially responsible for the events of Sept. 11. They also believed that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found or still hidden in Iraq.
The addiction treatment industry calls this "denial." I call it superior spin on the part of a White House that never ceases to amaze me with their ability to manipulate a public that is more content to watch television than hold their government responsible.
Last week's news that the Federal Aviation Administration had 52 pre-9-11 warnings coupled with the news that the Bush administration not only failed to act, but failed to disclose their failure to act until after the presidential election, came as no surprise to someone who spends her days and nights in the presidential spin zone. The thing that did come as a surprise was that the government's failure to act on these warnings fell on deaf ears.
There was hardly a peep of outrage by the general public. This is alarming. It means that the American public is like dogs watching television when it comes to holding their government accountable for what amounts to either gross negligence or gross dereliction of duty. If this failure had been perpetrated by a U.S. soldier as opposed to a U.S. commander in chief, or staff member of the commander in chief, that soldier would be facing a court martial – no ifs ands or buts about it. And if that soldier had tried to obstruct evidence, as this administration did for obvious political gain, the key would have been thrown away.
I can understand perhaps why airline employees, who are now just struggling day by day to live on half of what they once made with no retirement and growing health-care costs, are keeping their heads down. They are, in a word, broken. But I don't understand why a nation that lost almost 3,000 people, billions of dollars in economic damages, started two wars and lost its reputation for justice in the world see no reason to cry foul at this news.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why the public simply has no appetite for any bad news about this administration was published in a Wall Street Journal article written by Sharon Begley on Feb. 4, 2005. The article explains why people believe a "fact" that fits their views even if it's clearly false. The article quotes a study that revealed that once Americans hear something, we keep believing it, even in light of incontrovertible evidence that the initial information was false. As the article explains:
"People build mental models," explains Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, Crawley, who led the study that will be published in Psychological Science. "By the time they receive a retraction, the original misinformation has already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view, and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles." Therefore, he and his colleagues conclude in their paper, "People continue to rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and understand a subsequent retraction."
This explains why a majority of the people voted in the 2004 presidential election believed that Saddam Hussein was partially responsible for the events of Sept. 11. They also believed that Weapons of Mass Destruction were found or still hidden in Iraq.
The addiction treatment industry calls this "denial." I call it superior spin on the part of a White House that never ceases to amaze me with their ability to manipulate a public that is more content to watch television than hold their government responsible.
Reader Comments