The recent film THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD is a documentary about two activists who impersonate officials in formal circumstances to give a platform for a more progressive message. The film and the group are interesting as they approach an Ideal: on each level it recognized its audience and chose the right medium to reach it.
First, the documentary is unusually successful, even as an independent film. Umberto Eco, in his analysis of mass media, rightly claims that the perhaps ten percent of the population that is receptive to independent media does not need convincing. This is the Achilles heel of this media sector, and why much of the left wing or progressive media is far from the ideal. These media are attempting to sway public opinion, but fail because they never reach beyond their core independent audience who need no convincing, and because their conclusions frustrate their audience with the overwhelming strength of their argument, and little action. For instance, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH was convincing and the third highest grossing political documentary in history, but only four percent of the US population saw the film, and few decided not to drive their Hummers home after the screening.
Even fewer people have seen THE YES MEN, and yet it was more successful. My view is that the film itself was not intended to change minds, or to get people to think differently, but instead to motivate and to educate the activists and audiences. It showed how the mass media can be co-opted precisely in the ways that the activist audience has traditionally has found little success in documentary.
Second, the more powerful example of an approach to a media Ideal is in the communications depicted in the film. There are two core examples. First, activists impersonate a Dow Chemical spokesperson on BBC World, in front of an audience of 300 million people world-wide, and announce that Dow is liquidating Union Carbide and providing overdue and ethically necessary restitution to the victims of Bhopal. The Dow stock price plummeted and the residents of Bhopal were ecstatic.
Then, the same two activists impersonated government officials at a contractor convention in New Orleans. When they took to the podium to make speeches alongside the Governor and Mayor, they announced the reversal of policy that had not worked. All of the housing that had been condemned, keeping thousands homeless, would be reopened. The residents/victims heard about the reversal and were also ecstatic, at least until they found out it was a hoax. Even the contractors, who stood to lose money on lost development contracts, welcomed the message and congratulated the government impostors.
In both cases the men created a fiction, in essence a stage play, that they enacted only once. In the first case the medium was television news, and in the second, it was an actual stage. In both they created convincing characters. By presenting their story in a factual medium, they created the impression of truth and this impression caused the audience to think differently. As the residents of both Bhopal and New Orleans said, they were disappointed that the policy was a hoax, but they then understood what it meant to feel differently. Perhaps they can expect more, they universally exclaimed.
The reason this is far more successful than typical activist programs: they reached the mainstream audience through the successful delivery of narrative into the mass media, and they were able to cause the audience to think differently, even if for a moment.
On a purely activist level, this is a success. But the same could be said for the other items on the news or at the conference that day. Those messages reached a similar wide audience and swayed their minds. It might have been an entrenchment of established ideology, but it was hardly less effective. Why were not all the other stories then also not close to an ideal?
Perhaps we have to look to the wider intention of the media – that of contributing to civil society. In this case, we can consider a media instance more ideal if it is an expansion of civil society. There may not be a consensus about what this expansion looks like, or how it is best effected. However, we might get an idea of the merits of the instance by seeing how its stacks up against two competing views of civil society, namely Habermas and Foucault.
One way to view the expansion of civil society is in its level of discourse. Habermas viewed this broadening the discourse as a development of the public sphere. In this sense THE YES MEN are a necessary step in achieving the consensus that is the underpinning of Habermas’s communicative rationality. In broadening the public sphere their messages reverse the slow narrowing of the sphere in the repeated messaging of the other voices on the BBC.
The problem for THE YES MEN, in Habermas’s view, would be that their voice lasted only an hour. There was some lasting effect, locally in Bhopal, and in the legacy of the event with the BBC audience, which should remain acknowledged. But Habermas’s model of discourse requires an even power structure where these voices can last through the discussion. In this way, the activists have both helped Habermas out and shown how far the world is from his Ideal.
THE YES MEN performances show more potential in its rhetorical value and its consistency with Foucault. Foucault would dismiss the idea of an Ideal (or perhaps from an apolitical standpoint all communications are by definition ideal as they support the hegemonic structure). THE YES MEN, with their one-off performances and need to fool an audience, suggest that if there were an Ideal it would need to change once it is identified. Once the renewed Ideal has been observed, it would again need to change and the process continues with each observation, like a kind of Heisenberg Uncertainty Hypothesis.
There are two ways in which Foucault may be sympathetic to the activists. The first is in the co-opting of power for their communication. The only way to find their audience was to use the establishment media. The intention of THE YES MEN was not to convince people, but to present competing rhetoric. Together they served to upset the power presented in traditional media.
The second way is in the aftermath of the performances. Foucault saw value in conflict as the most effective means to undermine established power. The coverage of the performances became news stories on their own, focusing on effects of a cruel hoax, and the big drop in the Dow stock price. The traditional news media, with its coverage of untrustworthy previous reports, serves not only to undermine the rhetorical power of the established news medium, but also to increase, by definition, the power of alternative media. This certainly does a service to civil society, much more than any other media instance in the same public space.
For both Faucoult and Habermas there is implied in THE YES MEN’s actions a need for much more regular engagement, both to balance the power, change the level of discourse, and upset the traditional power. For both theorists this media, despite any expansion, fails to find the ideal. For the former, its quixotic nature fails to deliver a sustained discourse. For the latter, it fails to reposition any norms from the discourse, which maintains power without any real challenge.
Does this mean THE YES MEN is worthless without its ideal incarnation? Only if we fail to see the limitations in the dual approach to civil society. Media (in terms of fora for communication) can change, and can be changed. The minds that are swayed, even for a moment, do represent ‘real’ change. It does change power, even if imperceptibly.
A Classroom Divided is a documentary about grade 3 experiment in prejudice and power. The teacher, Jane Elliott, reacting to the assassination of Martin Luther King, separated her grade three class into two groups, based on eye colour. She then gave one group preferential treatment, including more recess time and more playground priviledges. The other-coloured group was required to wear a coloured scarf in order to make the physical difference more obvious.
(note to the viewer: the first twenty minutes are most relevant)
As the excerpt from the film demonstrates, there are many elements to prejudice that remain unacknowledged in our society, and one of the reasons this film and the experiment therein remains as fresh as the prejudice itself.
Almost immediately, and with the help of the teacher, the prejudice comes out. The next day the roles were reversed and the repressed became the repressor. In just as short a time, the same attitudes emerged from the former repressed. The same drop in test scores occured in the newly repressed.
In subsequent discussion, the children were surprised and shocked by their behaviours. Their dramatic experience remained with them long into their adulthood.
Common knowledge suggests that exposure to other cultures and races, especially through travel, is a very large tool in eliminating prejudicial barriers. The eye colour experiment indicates that the possibility and arbitrariness of prejudice is deep rooted.
To take this further, how much of our enlightened community, themselves dedicated to social justice, is unwittingly embracing prejudice and forming an unacknowledge hegemony? In these cases, similar to every other pair of repressed and repressor, the latter is unsympathetic, and even hostile, to the plight of the former.
Politics, certainly, is one such situation.
The difference between left and right has developed into ideological poles, both convinced each is right, both failing to listen to the other. In this case the right might take the role of the repressor, with its surge of popularity and hegemony over the last few decades.
Both sides are unwilling to see differences, more than similarities. Instead, each ideological pole, with its righteousness, listens only to itself, further polarizing the position with every sound of its own agreeable voice.
This might be fine, if the power were sufficiently spread out. This is the current assumption of the North American view of democracy: elections even the playing field.
We must be more wary. We know how these groups will react from the power imbalance. The powerful will refuse to acknowledge or listen to the repressed. The repressed will naturally fall into the roll. The vicious cycle starts.
The experiment tells us this is inevitable, and is just as likely to happen no matter who develops hegemony. It tells us that the group that gains power uses it in ways that would shock themselves. This likely to be the right, extrapolating current trends. The repression will extend or has already extended to Islam, to the Green Party, and to any other political minority.
There is no surprise, then, when voting amongst minority groups falls away, assuming the role of the dispossessed. And it is no wonder that the right will lose any compassion.
The reaction of the non-conservative population will be to attack the stance of the conservative ideology. This is the wrong approach, as it only continues to build the separation, reduce dialogue, and elimates any democractic benefits of public rhetoric.
This can only lead to tragedy, as history has repeatedly shown. And it is not the problem.
Instead, we need to acknowledge the prejudice that is embedding itself into our politics. We need to separate the danger of human nature in such such circumstances, where it is coupled with power, from the ideology. We need to recognize the problem is not the politics, it is the concentration of power.
Perhaps the best way to do that is to cross the floor of our legislatures, if only for a day.
The H1N1 virus is an epidemic that can destroy our society. Or it is an overblown fear which actually makes up a minor number of cases. These competing views are fighting for turf on the media battleground.
The Monster
The epidemic army has a well developed arsenal.
The language on the surface promotes calm, but more subtly and powerfully does the opposite. Here are some examples.
- “There is no reason to make anyone panic”. They do not say remain calm. The word panic is used repeatedly.
- They clearly establish that there will not be enough doses. Implied is that you might the one not to get access.
- The reporter repeatedly states that the the virus continues to evolve, and that can overburden health resources.
These three instances are classic examples of how to create a monster in the mainstream media. The language is fast and high-pitched, with bold graphics. This creates a sense of excitement, and builds on the fear we already have of this unknown virus.
The video also builds on this fear by developing the monster. First it is always changing, so we can never hope to understand what it is. Second, we do not get to see the virus and how it acts, we only see its footprints. These are manifested by the anarchy that is implied in overburdened health resources. Third, our protectors will fail us – in this case it is the manufacturers. When, in other reports, the manufacturers blame the government, we have the complete innoculation of protection.
This subtly suggests the complete breakdown of society, which moves us from fear to terror.
Naturally there is a lot to be gained from this. First, as the reporter mentions in the beginning, declarations waive certain (unspecified) requirements of the government.
Second, the slick graphic and hyper-excited roles played by the reporters draws viewers into the ongoing story, and builds audience.
These newscasts are a well rehearsed example of modern day horror as performed by mainstream media.
The voice of reason?
There are not many competing voices. One of the best is the CBS investigative report. It is also an example of good journalism, perhaps the kind that cannot be replaced by citizen journalism:
This report is different in a number of ways.
- it explains the size of the virus, indicating that it is not as prevalent as suggested elsewhere.
- it shows why we might overreact and close schools unnecessarily. It recommends careful consideration beforehand.
- It shows that government agencies are not being open with information to help the audience understand better the nature of this purported monster.
In essence, this report tries to ‘pull back the curtain’ and show what the monster really is. The presentation, though, less emotional and less psychologically engaging.
Who Wins the Battle?
The CBS voice of restraint is calm, restrained and sober. It is five times the length of the first clip. It does not stand a chance.
Not only is the MSNBC more entertaining, more energetic and more emotional, it also fulfills a psychological desire for horror.
This means that even if we do not agree, or buy into it’s premise, will still watch it and build it into our public consciousness.
The best way to reach an audience depends on the message you want and the motivation for your communication. In film, this ranges from a news story to a sitcom, and can be documentary or drama. You might find audiences on the internet or through feature film. Often success is unpredictable, and rarely measurable.
For progressive issues the challenge is to break out beyond the converted and to leave a lasting impression.
Tracking a film, where you measure the awareness of a film event in the public consciousness, is an expensive and involving procedure mostly restricted to studio releases. It is an essential investment guide, in the weeks leading up to a release, to help determine how many screens to release on and how much last minute marketing to invest in.
Other film makers and distributors without the means can only get rough measures of their success. This might be mentions in web and traditional media, and anecdotal evidence such as references in other films and commentary, and fan organizations (set up by the fans themselves, rather than the marketers).
Ultimately the best way to achieve a breakout is to create content for the larger audience. In other words, don’t make a documentary if you want to reach the mainstream.
One of the more successful alternate genres is comedy. Comedy allows you to make a point as subtly as you want, it can be done in very short form, which is ideal for low cost viral distribution, and it does not have the responsibility to provide evidence or prove anything. Entertainment is primary, didacticism is only a close second.
As an example, Nothing but Nets is a highly successful campaign to raise funds for mosquito nets in Africa. They made one public service announcement for broadcast on VH1. Of course, to get airtime on VH1 you have to spend some money. But with that investment you should create content that will catch interest. This video doesn’t hit the audience over the head (there are other Nothing but Nets videos for that), but makes its point:
Funny or Die, the website, has created a series of short PSAs about political themes. This one was paid for by Moveon.org, with Will Ferrell and Jon Hamm, in support of the public healthcare option.
Naturally having a headlining star is one of the reasons the video received 1.5 million views. But the satirical nature allowed the point to be made without burdening the wider audience without the kinds of evidence demanded by the documentary format.
This kind of comedy is the mainstay of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. They have developed a very wide and committed audience. They have also managed, in between all the laughs, to delivery just as much news as standard cable news formats.
This kind of format, in short or long form, makes for good criticism or for making a broad point. It can be short, especially if it is distributed on the internet, which makes repeated messaging possible with a series of videos.
Some advocacy groups shy away from comedy, thinking that their topic is too serious, or that comedy will belittle their plight. But there are many styles to comedy, and little it cannot handle in a useful way.
It may not change minds immediately, but with a series of films it might make a different approach more thinkable.
A more popular genre, like comedy, can break an issue out into the mainstream. Progressives should not dismiss it too quickly.
MTV Asia has developed a series of content aimed at combating Human Trafficking. It is a multi-genre, cross-platform strategy that combines documentary, music video, drama and live music. It reaches audiences through the internet, on the MTV Asia channel, and through local concerts in countries that are sources of human traffic. The videos include Radiohead and The Killers.
The focus of the campaign is on potential victims, and most interestingly much of their content is drama. In the past the structure of such advocacy would be a short documentary video, explaining the problem, distributed through the school system or through community organizations, typically taking a pedagogical stance.
However, in this case the drama engages the audience in a completely different way, and might be a excellent example of how fiction is a far more efficient genre. Through the use of engaging characters and memorable scenes, the didactic elements are in the background and the audience becomes more able and comfortable recognizing and handling potential traffickers.
The story lines in the short online films and music videos typically tell the story of contrast. First, we see a familiar scene, such as a streaker on a football field or a young couple kissing tenderly. The next scenes start to depict the coercion behind the scenes, causing our emotions to swing the other way. Of course, the greater the initial emotion the greater the swing. And so the choice of drama is important here because it is most effective at creating this contrast.
The program itself, with its series of films and genres, with the story lines and multiple platforms, uses other elements of technique in social change. The film are short, associated with good elements in society, and the repetition of message breeds familiarity in the audience.
This makes MTV Exit and ideal program to study the relationship between film, distribution and audience.
