Shaping Meaning through Media

During the Cold War (1945-1991), the United States and the Soviet Union competed because they both wanted to emerge as the dominant world superpower. Rather than directly fighting each other, the countries demonstrated their rivalry in more roundabout ways. This tension between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. eventually affected society at large: American media spewed out anti-communist propaganda in order to create an unwavering bias against the Soviet Union and communism. By emphasizing the artificiality of media through various filming techniques and Mrs. Iselin’s publicity stunts, The Manchurian Candidate (1962) critiques how the media skewed people’s opinions during the Cold War.

This scene from The Manchurian Candidate demonstrates how anti-communist sentiment shaped individuals’ behavior during the Cold War. The scene begins with pan shot of the set and filming equipment, drawing attention to how media portrayals are unauthentic and highly polished. Rather than presenting the public with objective accounts of events, the media tends to be biased in what they represent and how they represent it. In addition to that, Senator John Iselin’s accusations about communists working in the United States government are always viewed from the television screen, as opposed to showing his rant head-on. This strongly parallels with how American media utilized anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War to convince citizens that communism was a tangible threat. The Senator claims:

I have here a list of the names of two hundred and seven persons who are known by the Secretary of Defense as being members of the Communist Party who are still nevertheless working in and shaping the policy of the Defense Department!

The threat of communists infiltrating the American government immediately piques everyone’s interest and incites their anger. The crowd does not dismiss Senator Iselin’s claims as preposterous because, through media, they have been conditioned to live in a constant state of anxiety over the communist threat. This depiction of how merely mentioning communism sparks the audience’s anger demonstrates just how much the media has distorted people’s perception of this foreign ideology.

The aforementioned details of the scene enable the viewer to draw a connection between the fallibility of media and Mrs. Iselin’s tendency to exploit publicity for personal gain; this strung-out situation criticizes how many powerful individuals have too much influence over individuals’ thoughts through the media. Senator Iselin is shown speaking on the television as his wife nods in approval. The juxtaposition of the Senator and his wife during the speech alludes to how Mrs. Iselin had explained the plan to her husband beforehand. Furthermore, in this shot, Mrs. Iselin is situated above the television screen the Senator is displayed on; this positioning likens Mrs. Iselin to a distant, omnipotent force watching from above as her plan unfolds. Although she does not hold any political power herself, she manipulates the media through the actions of her husband, which, in turn, affect public opinion. Ms. Iselin represents the sly masterminds who manipulated the media during the Cold War.

The Manchurian Candidate warns its contemporary Cold War audience of the extent to which the media impacts their view of communism. This is significant because the media often influence our thoughts subconsciously; as a result, without knowing what to look for, the media can potentially influence our thoughts without our full awareness. Being wary of the messages the media presents to us and the perspective from which they are told prevents us from adopting xenophobic ideas, such as the anti-communist attitude that was prevalent during the Cold War.

Political Agency as a Catalyst for Change

The pro-gun control video above shows well-known celebrities and actors naming the towns in which mass shootings have taken place. The seemingly endless slew of places affected by gun violence provides a tangible representation of how widespread this issue has become. It also appeals to national pride as a reason to demand gun control, implying that as Americans, we should all have a right to feel safe. This video was posted shortly after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012; what strikes me is that it is still incredibly relevant today.

I still remember learning about the news clearly: as I was on my way home from my school’s Christmas program, I heard about the Sandy Hook shooting on the radio. I was nothing short of shocked and horrified; it seemed so surreal to me. Up until that point, I had believed that such arbitrary acts of violence only happened in movies. Unfortunately, due to the increasing frequency of gun violence in America, most of us—myself included—have become desensitized to it. Mass shootings have transformed from heart-stopping, tear-jerking events to just another mass shooting, and that is so devastating.

Fortunately, politicians such as President Barack Obama are working to resolve the issue of gun control. In a nutshell, Obama’s strategy to reduce gun violence in America involves: requiring all gun sellers to obtain a license and run background checks on customers who wish to purchase guns, making background checks more thorough and holistic, and investing more money into the mental health industry to help troubled individuals who have a propensity for violence. However, Obama’s attempt at modifying gun control laws has been futile because he is unable to obtain approval from the Republican-dominated Congress. One of the main issues with gun control is the government’s inability to keep up with the will of the people. According to a recent Gallup poll, the majority of Americans support stricter gun control laws; however, Congress continues to object to Obama’s propositions. I urge readers to vote in both congressional and presidential elections so that the ideologies of politicians in power will better reflect ideologies of the majority. It is common for citizens to simply not vote because they feel like their vote will not make a difference; however, that is simply not true. If everyone votes, the government will be composed of individuals who accurately represent citizens’ beliefs, and maybe gun control will be a more tangible possibility.

Another obstacle in the advancement of gun control laws includes American citizens who vehemently oppose gun restrictions. Many pro-gun rights people believe that gun control laws violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Personally, I think that there needs to be a compromise because the safety of the general population is more important than following a literal interpretation the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of American citizens, which includes their safety. Following this logic, the government should be able to make modifications if it will reduce the frequency of gun violence. In addition to that, many pro-gun rights people accuse President Obama of wanting to take away their arms; however, as explicitly stated in his gun control plan, Obama merely wants to impose restrictions on the circulation of guns in America. I support whatever measures we can take to reduce gun violence because I do not want to see more innocent lives lost and continue becoming desensitized to gun violence.

Although gun violence is not completely preventable, America can still take preventive measures to decrease its likelihood. Something had to be done after the Sandy Hook shooting, and something has to be done now. We cannot ignore the importance of this issue, as so many Americans have already been affected by it. Instead, we should exercise our political agency by voting in elections to make sure that political officials in power represent the needs of the people.

An Extensive Look At Torture

The general public can never fully comprehend the extent of torture, as it is a mostly underground occurrence that we are only exposed to in brief glimpses of news—such as the release of prisoners being tortured in the Abu Ghraib prison—and through distorted depictions in the media. I think that torture should be avoided unless in extreme cases, such as the time bomb case presented by Dershowitz.

Before the debate, I was against torture as a means of extracting information from suspects because it is easy for soldiers to get overwhelmed with the amount of power they have over those they are torturing. For instance, American soldiers extensively tortured and humiliated prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The controversial images that were released from Abu Ghraib demonstrated that these soldiers derived some kind of pleasure from degrading these prisoners.

During the debate, I had to defend a side that I did not necessarily agree with. Dershowitz made a good point about the ticking time bomb in which torture is presented as a necessary evil. The ticking bomb situation is one in which government workers capture an individual involved in a terrorist attack and torture him in order to obtain information about future terrorist attacks. This appeals to one’s sense of morality by presenting the audience with two extreme options: either treating this terrorist prisoner with dignity or by torturing him in order to save others’ lives. In this scenario, the cost of depriving an individual of his basic human rights by torturing him is less than the cost of letting many individuals die. I would agree with Dershowitz’s interpretation of this scenario. However, this situation is very rare and this method can be problematic. Even if this situation does happen, then there is a possibility that government officials can be torturing an individual who has no knowledge of the event at all, or even an individual who is not involved with the attack in the first place. For this reason, I am still mainly against torture because it is morally wrong and should be avoided as much as possible. Individuals should not be authorized to inflict pain on others because it gives them too much power. As demonstrated in Abu Ghraib, there is a risk of the torturers getting carried away with their job and continuing to torture individuals even after they have gathered all of the information they need.

“Dershowitz: Torture could be justified” was informative because it presented two opposing views of torture; while Alan Dershowitz advocates for the use of torture in extreme situations, Ken Roth contends that torture should never be allowed, regardless of the situation. Dershowitz attempts to justify torture by mentioning that through certain methods of torture, “countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords . . . secretly and hypothetically.” This attempts to put America’s use of torture into perspective: although it is morally wrong, other countries utilize torture too, so it might not be that bad after all. However, the fact that other countries engage in torture does not negate the fact that it is morally wrong. Dershowitz continues his line of thinking by stating, “If we ever came close to [using torture . . . ] I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.” Although I do not agree with his implication that the use of torture is inevitable and there are no better alternatives, I agree that the public should be aware of the methods of torture that are being employed. This way, the use of torture will not completely be in the dark and there will be more of a discussion about its immorality.

Ken Roth challenges Dershowitz’s argument by stating, “the fact that sometimes laws are violated does not mean you want to start legitimizing the violation by getting some judge to authorize it.” This accusatory wording makes it seem like Dershowitz wants to promote the use of torture by making it legal. However, Dershowitz makes it clear that that is not his intention because torture will happen regardless of whether or not there are warrants; however, these warrants will impose some regulations on the type of torture that can be used, who can use it, and when they can use it. Ken Roth further elaborates his point by saying, “Once you open the door to torture, once you start legitimizing it in any way, you have broken the absolute taboo.” I agree with this point; however, removing the taboo associated with torture will most likely result in people no longer brushing the issue under the table and actually having a conversation about it. Roth appeals to the audience’s sense of American nationality by stating, “We have to understand the United States sets a model for the rest of the world. And if the United States is going to authorize torture in any sense, you can imagine that there are many more unsavory regimes out there that are just dying for the chance to say, ‘Well, the U.S. is doing it, we’re going to start doing it as well.’” Roth then draws an extreme connection between torture and terrorism: “If you start opening the door [to torture . . .] you’ve basically sent the signal that the ends justify the means, and that’s exactly what Osama bin Laden thinks. He has some vision of a just society. His ends justify the means of attacking the World Trade Center.” This was very striking because terrorism is a taboo that no one wants to be associated with. By saying that torture is essentially a gateway to more atrocious acts, he implies that it can lead to events such as 9/11. Although the logic of this claim is not that sound, it makes a very emotional case.

Ultimately, I agree with Dershowitz’s claim that in the time bomb case, it causes less long-term harm torturing the individual involved in terrorist attacks in order to prevent the deaths of innocent civilians. However, I do not think that Dershowitz’s argument could be applied to torture situations in general because these time bomb scenarios are rare. Rather than utilizing torture, the government can use other, less harmful technology in order to keep its citizens safe.