MovieChat Forums > Contagion (2011) Discussion > despicable message, what we're supposed ...

despicable message, what we're supposed to understand

posted 13 years ago by nell-nell
108 replies | jump to latest

In this day and age, when alternative media are gaining ground and proving the hypocrisy of institutionalised media, the movie demonises alternative media. I know that the internet is a vast area where incorrectness is more prevalent than accuracy, but at least alternative news media do not purport to have the monopoly of truth. So I wonder if the movie wants us to think that what we see in news channels is more honest, more truthful than what bloggers, youtubers, twitters and facebookers, for example, show. It’s legitimate to ask why that should be so. Big news channels are the ones benefitting from large budgets, and people who allocate these budgets have the “right” to interfere with the message/ the news these channels broadcast, let alone other types of different agendas. Today, many important news channels are even incorporating programmes dedicated to what is going on in the net as a form of recognition of its importance and its appeal to viewers. The idea of denigrating alternative media works well for originality, but I think if presented seriously as a message it becomes less defendable.

[–] bureau203 13 years ago

"I know that the internet is a vast area where incorrectness is more prevalent than accuracy"

That also describes the media in this country.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

[–] rock321 13 years ago

Jellybrother is 100% correct.

There is no way on this planet that one blogger would attract that much attention on his own. Blogs are generally discovered when someone Googles the news or a subject. Rarely are blogs followed with any sort of consistency. Blogs don't have the power that movies and media seem to want them to have. People, in general, realize that blogs are usually just an individual's opinion (sometimes backed with research, other times not so much).

People STILL put more faith in large news organizations--without taking into account that most of the major media is owned by a single entity. In school, when kids get research for papers, they are told not to use Blogs--but they are allowed to use CNN. People would NEVER give a random Internet blogger so much attention without the elevation of the major media.

Before anybody incorrectly points to people like Julian Assange (not a blogger), I would like to point out the REASON for alternative sources of news on the Internet... Skeptics don't always brainlessly believe what they read and like to be introduced to a variety of perspectives and evidence before making up their minds. That doesn't mean they automatically trust bloggers, that just means that they are less trusting of any media in general (hence Wikileaks and other whistle-blowing websites).

Is the movie proclaiming, "DON'T TRUST ALTERNATIVE NEWS SOURCES!" Well, no, not exactly--but the ONE example they give is super evil and untrustworthy. Sooo, it stands to reason that people might get a bit miffed about the perceived message here.

This movie is full of ridiculous lessons in morality. You had an affair? DEAD! I mean, it's not just ONE thing--it's a lot of annoying little messages that are present in this movie that make it so cliched and annoying.

And to the people saying: "It's just a movie!" Well, yeah, no *beep* However, it is human nature to look for purpose or greater meaning in art (even bad art). The purpose of movies is not just to entertain--movies have MANY MORE purposes than THIS. Don't just write people off who look for meaning in film--it's a valid thing to do. Plus, it's something filmmakers EXPECT you to do. Many writers might create scripts to 'entertain', but the majority of the self-respecting ones also make them to convey a message as well (remember all of your lessons regarding 'theme' from high school?).

[–] rock321 13 years ago

Also, if this movie was created purely for entertainment purposes--it forgot to be entertaining.

That's all.

[–] bobsci_bel 13 years ago

Well said Rock. Nice to see there are still intelligent people out there.

[–] d_henderson1810 11 years ago

The problem is, that most people approach any sort of news, mainstream or alternative, with the view "What does this mean for me?"

People tend to believe any outlet who tells you what you already think. People have their own pre-concieved notions, fears and biases, and will gravitate towards anyone who agrees with them, without question. It is just part of the human nature.

You need to establish what YOU think first, your values, morals, biases etc, and then, when reading any form of media, think if you are open to other ideas, or if you are just believing those who reinforce your beliefs.

Each human is their own most credible witness. The human will believe his or her reality before all others, so any view similar to theirs is seen as more credible.

For example, if you hate your boss at work, and you get pulled over by the cops for speeding, or your parents were strict when you were growing up, you will have a dislike and mistrust of authority. Therefore, anyone who says that authority figures cannot be trusted will have your attention.

People base their world view on the values they were taught, their experience, and their own desires. Anyone who can manipulate those things in you, has your heart. That's how cults, the media, and conspiracy theories work. They tell you what you WANT to hear, and tell you that your views are more important than anyone else's.

So, before reading any media, just work out if it is the outlet who is tricking you, or your own belief system which you have tailored to suit yourself. Before asking if you can trust anyone else, you need to establish if you can trust yourself first.

[–] GuyWhoSezThatsNotGood 12 years ago

Some alternative media, like The Nation and Mother Jones, is very useful and well-sourced. Some of it is just lunatic fringe conspiracy nonsense like Alex Jones-types and 9-11 truthers. You need a fair bit of education to know the difference; otherwise you're awash in a sea of information and no way to know who's telling you the truth.

[–] Vincen7 12 years ago

"9-11 truthers" ?.. please don't tell me that you believe the official "explanation" of 9/11.. every person with a bit of sense has to know that it's complete bullsh*t

[–] skatie916 9 years ago

The funniest thing about truthers like yourself is that you're all so convinced that there are so many of you... you need to get out of your echo chambers for a while, mate.

[–] ptitzz 12 years ago

In this day and age entire conflicts are steered by alternative media and not always into the best direction. Take Lybia for example. It used to be a nice little secular state with a moderate dictator on top. Now its a hellhole ravaged by sectarian violence with no working government. The whole role of social networks and so on had been emphasized from day one when NATO bombed the *beep* out of the country but less so in the aftermath, when Lybia turned into a Sharia state. Im not saying that mainstream media provides an always truthful, objective outlook, but it is quite silly to expect these values from alternative media without questioning it as well. Furthermore, right now doctors are being killed in Pakistan since the word got out that CIA used polio vaccines to track Osama. Message was further emphasized and turned into hysteria by bloggers and radicals alike. Pakistan is one of 3 countries i think that still had not eradicated polio. This wouldnt be happening if the whole deal stayed secret, if it even took place. But it didnt, word got out and now its another mess. If this was the message conveyed by the movie i think it is a very valid assertion.

[–] Eightygenuis 12 years ago

CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC,CBS and Fox News, told us all that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and anyone who questioned that was surely a kook.
Look how that turned out.

The problem with the corporate media is that they are too nationalistic. They are too quick to assume that what government officials tell them are actual facts, rather than spin.

Colin Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson said they played the media like a fiddle in the lead up to Iraq. Ashleigh Banfield said that MSNBC told her to not bring up any stories, or questions about the War in Iraq back in 2002, so when you have evidence that the corporate media will outright lie about so called "national emergencies", people tend to take what they say with a grain of salt. There is no doubt in my mind that

The mainstream media is concerned about 2 things, and that's 1. corporate profits and 2. access to establishment politicians. Any facts that get in the way are shoved aside.

[–] godless_one20 12 years ago

Absolutely right. In comparison to the unanimous propaganda emitted by the corporate media, bloggers are very diverse in opinions and outlooks, and are constantly being checked and countered by each other.

The kind of blogging Rush Limbaugh/Alex Jones portrayed in this movie could never influence that kind of an audience in such a specific way for that long, without his lies being uncovered by his rivals.

[–] ptitzz 11 years ago

The kind of blogging Rush Limbaugh/Alex Jones does is the only type that gets views. That is an incoherent stream of single-minded bs, so popular among mainstream media outlets. Thats another point. Only in case of bloggers there is no scrutiny applied to them whatsoever. They couldn't just lose their *job* after repeatedly reporting fake stories. I'd take Reuters over some truth warrior who rarely leaves his house any time.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GreyHunter 12 years ago

It demonizes *a* blogger. Not all bloggers. Not even all conspiracy theory nutjob bloggers. One blogger. At some people, it has to be acknowledged that the Internet is basically a vast, unregulated playground and there are some very malicious, stupid, and/or dangerous people out there. From Stormfront to Jenny McCarthy to any number of political extremists, this is a reality already, not one first imagined by this movie. So it has a blogger as the villain? So what? When a movie has a villain, and a very large number of movies do, that villain is going to fall into some category. Would you have been more comfortable if the villain had been a convenience store clerk spreading wild rumors and thus vilified a...convenience store clerk? Do you follow the logic here?

[–] cormac_zoso 12 years ago

you're going to believe the american government instead? while there is plenty of innacurate info on the web, etc, etc, that doesn't make the u.s. gov't any more trustworthy nor the 'traditional' media outlets more accurate ... the gov't will lie any chance they get and this has been proven again and again thru the decades ... the media is only a branch of the gov't any more so it's not going to sit there and report what the gov't doesn't want it to ... until it becomes too obvious not to and there are pulitzer's to be had ... or profit ...

if the gov't says there's no problem, probably time to stock up on bottled water and dry goods ... i'm not just talking about disease related lies but all the lies the gov't has just relished telling and maintaining to this day ... like vietnam ... like the gulf wars ... etc ... they don't care about you because they can go to ground and get all the food, protection, and medical care you won't get ...

[–] kenny-164 12 years ago

Interesting thread. Many of the issues here relate to the Manning situation as well as Snowden's, it seems to me.

Personally I don't need anyone to tell me that governments and mass media are capable of deception. The great irony is the woeful naivete of those who seem to think that the internet is not.

I also those who talk about the internet and blogs as having some kind of self-correcting mechanism, where liars and deceivers have their blogs shown to be such, is increbibly naive. Perhaps some people in a given situation may be swayed by some competing blog, hopefully the one that really is true. But I don't think that's what actually happens. People tend to seek out sources that confirm their points of view and prejudices. It is naive to think that the internet and the world of blogs is inherently self correcting and more truthful than conventional media.

Plus it is painfully obvious how those attacking major media ignore the craft and knowledge necessary to investigative journalism, at least of the effective sort. They either don't think such knowledge is necesary, or ignore the ramifications this aspect.

Frankly the general overlay to much of the preference many have for the blogosphere is essentially anarchistic. And that is very troubling.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] curl-6 11 years ago

What we're supposed to understand is that crackpots are crackpots.

Alternative media can be every bit as slanted as self-serving as the mainstream media. Let's not pretend its some kind of saintly bastion of objectivity and truth. Look at the anti-vaccine movement; bloggers spreading harmful misinformation that can lead to the death of children.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 11 years ago

Yea. Pretty much. Mainstream media may have its issues. But alternative media, in the sense that you are using it, is far far worse.

That being said, I totally think Alan shouldn't have been stopped. Doing the good work by cleaning out the gene pool for humankind. Hoohoo.