In our last article we discussed the news and media, and how we might understand what underlying message they are giving us through the use of something called Narrative Theological Biblical criticism. This is type of criticism is often applied to understanding biblical text, but it can also be used to understand any type of literature. Narrative criticism explores the text as it is. Its goal is to discover what is right there, in the text, so we can understand the author's message.

It doesn't look for historical facts, or at the context from which the writer was writing, it looks at the text and the message that the writer is trying to put forward through the examination of various parts of the text, and the comparison of various texts. You might note that the news is not text. It is oral. It is, however, scripted, written and organized as written text, and then read and performed orally. We can, therefor, use the same techniques as those applied in narrative criticism, to understand what the real message is, and what the news casters want us to believe. Going a little farther than this, we can also understand what they don't want us to believe by what is not stressed, or delved into, more deeply.

In narrative criticism we begin by reading the message. At the beginning there is usually an introduction, prelude, or a series previews that tell us exactly what the author wants us to get from the message. The author then goes on step by step, to deliver the story. Each story-each chapter, paragraph, and sentence, is placed in the most appropriate order possible to help lead us to a single conclusion.

Each story is a complete lesson and text in itself, but there is an overall message that comes from our understanding of all of the texts and stories combined. If one wants to know more about the overall text-or the larger narrative, one can leave the narrative criticism for a moment and go back to our description of the hermeneutic circle. If we will examine who is writing the text, what context they are in, and what they have to gain or lose from us believing a certain way or not, we will become aware of what the larger narrative. We will also discover that these smaller stories, the one's that are working on our psyches continuously, are beginning to shape us and change us, so we will be prepared to believe the larger narrative. We will also be prepared to hear other similar smaller stories without feeling the need to question. We will just accept them as truth. This may sound sinister, but in the world of communication, persuasion is good. In democratic organizations it is also important to get people to agree with you in order to put forward an agenda. Too many people thinking, asking questions, and having contrary opinions, are very inconvenient. Especially for people with power and their own agendas.

The following method is one that is usually used in the advertising community. The same methods, however, those created by a famous psychologist named John Watson, can be used to influence anyone's belief systems if done without the person being aware. In order to sell a belief or product, a few conditions must be met. The person being modified must be in a safe place, they must be relaxed and unaware of what is happening. What better media for this than on TV. One is safe, in one's own home, relaxing and enjoying oneself. We can see how the behavior modification works by observing commercials, the vanguard of persuasive TV.

These are the elements one needs for a good commercial:

1. Repetition
2. Intensity
3. Distraction

One of the best examples of this technique are the commercials for a product called Head On. Head On is a pain reliever for headaches. Instead of taking a pill, one applies it to the forehead and it is supposed to enter the blood stream from there. The commercials were somewhat obnoxious, but they were genius. You would basically have a person with a headache. The commercial, of course, was always much louder than the TV show that it appeared in (Intensity). Someone would have a headache they would say something like, "For relief of pain, Head On, Apply Directly to the for head." They would then repeat "Head On, Apply Directly to the forehead" three or for times (Repetition). It would be so annoying that it would upset the watcher (Distraction.)

There would be another commercial and then the Head On commercial would come back on again repeating itself. After about a month the commercial had changed. It showed someone saying, "Head On, apply directly to the forehead," before they could finish repeating it three times, however, someone would break in and mimic the commercial showing how annoyed they were when they heard one phrase being repeated over and over. They would say, "I hate your commercial, but your product is great."

What this commercial did was get us to think of the slogan ourselves. If someone just said "Head On," we would think, "Apply directly to the forehead." When we have a headache and we go into a store if we see sign that says Head On, we will immediately think, "Apply Directly to the forehead." We will also think of the missing line. What is the missing line? You may ask. The missing line is "To relieve pain," or "For relief of pain." I really don't remember what the line says, exactly, because it was hidden by the distraction. I know, however, that if I go to a grocery store and see Head On I am more likely to buy it because I will say, "Apply directly to the forehead" to myself, and the secret message, "For relief of pain," will be there. I am more likely, therefor, to choose it over the others, thinking that I have made up my own mind to choose it. The same thing works with news stories.

I remember watching the news reports on the UN and the speech that Caesar Chavez made. At the beginning he referred to George Bush as the devil. He then went on to explain U.S. foreign policy issues in Latin America; how the U.S. helped overthrow democratically elected governments; and how they tried to fund a coo in Venezuela; the relationship of the U.S. with Cuba; and the way that trade was destroying many of the economies in the world. All we heard in the news, however, was that Chavez called George Bush the devil and how bad that was. That was the focal point for all of the news programs, as if someone told them all to say the same thing. It was repeated over and over to us.

People said that he was careless because of that. They talked about him being cocky, they talked about boycotting oil from Venezuela, and how upset American citizens were about it. They repeated this so much that I can't really remember the other part. I can't remember what he said.

The news never covered what he said. They never looked at why he said it. They never explored whether his accusations were fact or fiction. There wasn't an expose, or review of the history of the U.S. and South America. The big question "Why?" was never asked. A surface answer to the question, which was the attack on the character of the man, was provided repeatedly, but the question was never truly explored and answered. We must ask, therefor, what the agenda of the news was. In this example we see the repetition, we see the intensity, we see the distraction, and we see the behavior modification that shapes and prepares us to receive the next message.

In the next article we will begin to explore the ordering of the news. If we can see a pattern, we can begin to understand the bigger picture. This means understanding how the stories and broadcasts are organized and how one is being led from one story, or belief, to the next, until one embraces the overall belief system that is behind the whole presentation. Considering who owns the media, it is not difficult to determine what the desired beliefs are, or what belief system that the media is moving us to accept. We will explore the news for ourselves, however, and see for ourselves. We can find the hidden agenda for ourselves in the message. In these articles it is my intention to give everyone the tools necessary to do so.