Day 34-Where'd You Get Your Information From, Fool?

Okay, I admit it. As much as I may have derided it or denied it in the past, it's true: I am a total npr junkie. (Maybe I should have given that up for Lent).

But it's not what you think! You see, I took a quiz in last month's Cosmo magazine that tells you what kind of stimulation you respond to the most, and it turns out I love the auditory. Which explains why I constantly have music on, why I prefer to listen to the Phils on 1210 am radio rather than watch the games on TV, why I date musicians (wink wink ;), and why I tune in to npr.

That being said, I must note that every denizen of the twenty-first century knows how difficult it is to obtain objective information. Someone finances the news transmission somewhere along the line, no matter the agenda of the producer. The American media generator is particularly sanitized, in my opinion, and npr bears no exception.

Just this afternoon, I listened anxiously to a "special report" addressing recent developments in the Libya confrontation, including journalist accounts and expert testimonies. A peculiar thing occurred to me: How could I, as an individual, ever prove or disprove whether this is really happening?

Please don't misinterpret my question--I do not promote denial a la Ahmadinejad. Instead, I wonder about the individual's position in the face of the media corporaglomoration.

The report I heard pertained to a foriegn land which I have never seen (Lybia), embroiled in a conflict between parties which I am not affiliated with (Gaddafi supporters and Libyan rebels), and a military intervention led by an organization I do not belong to (the United Nations), using weapons technology that I haven't the faintest bit of knowledge about. In this case, do I simply accept these premises as fact because I cannot dispute them?

He could use some "me"-time

(Side note-when did Khaddafi become Gaddafi? Feels like it happened sometime shortly after the Cairo uprising. Is there a reason why the news media subtly alter the names of foriegn leaders when these figures receive international attention?)

Even a story as trivial (and irresistible) as the Charlie Sheen drama succumbs to this type of questioning. In fact, the influence external media forces in this story may be more apparent than in the realm of international conflict.

He's Liutenant Topper Harley from Hot Shots!, he's the Wild Thing Ricky Vaughn from Major League, and Daniel Saxon from Beyond the Law, of straight to video fame.

Lovable bad boy Charlie Sheen is currently being portrayed as a mentally unstable, impulsive, violent, porn-star loving drug addict who commits morally reprehensible acts on the reg.

Could it be that Sheen's verbal tirade directed at his powerful, Hollywood boss with all sorts of media connections ignited a vast mechanism that shapes public perception [of Charlie]? Have the airwaves been inundated with carefully-edited footage promoting the ideas and feelings that media producers want us plebes to subscribe to?

I am by no means defending the Sheenster, nor do I have "Sheenis Envy" (his term, not mine). Personally, I view Sheen as a spoiled rich kid with no internalized boundaries for his behavior, and an alarming inability to conduct genuine human relationships, especially with women.

Having said all this, is the individual impotent to create a sincere persona in the face of the media monstrosity? (I picture the "media monstrosity" as a Truck-a-saurus type of creature)

Unfortunately, Truckasaurus was not as cool in person as one would expect

Essentially, I wonder if 2011 is really 1984.