Posted by Joshua Tyler | Published
Americans used to believe that these stories were not fair, and, whether that was true or not, for a long time, there was an effort to make it seem true. Eventually, the media gave up even the pretense of being truthful and went full steam ahead into sensationalist propaganda, but they wouldn’t have gotten out to such an extent if their audience hadn’t been primed to accept it.
That trend came into play in society with one highly influential film that misled viewers into thinking it was criticizing useless television, while subtly convincing them that irresponsibility was the only true path. And maybe, just maybe, it was right.
This is the story of how The network The audience has been brainwashed into accepting fake news.
The Story of Network Corruption
The network follows aging newscaster Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, as he learns he is about to be fired after years of declining viewership. In a moment of despair, Beale announces on live television that he plans to kill himself during the broadcast.
The shocking moment spiked the ratings briefly, and when Beale returned to the air, he delivered a rant urging viewers to yell out their windows that they were “mad as hell.” Seeing an opportunity, ambitious producer Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) reinvents the newscast as a spectacle built around Beale’s feelings.
The document presents this as an appalling corruption of journalism. But the film’s structure quietly and deliberately undermines that message at every turn. It does so using a four-step persuasion pattern.
Screenwashed By Affective Conditioning
Affective Conditioning is a persuasion process in which repeated emotional cues are paired with a person, idea, or behavior so that the audience automatically feels good or bad about it without consciously analyzing the argument.
Beale’s tirades are honest and compelling. His words about segregation, corporate power, and media manipulation are popular because the film never proves him wrong, and accurately reflects what people in the 70s were beginning to suspect about the true state of their world.
Meanwhile, Beale himself really believes in what he says and is one of only two people in the film who isn’t a liar or a hypocrite. More on who the other one is, soon.
Even though Beale breaks all the rules and standards, you can’t help yourself to hear good for him.
Tested for Source Toxicity
Poisoning the Source is a rhetorical system in which people who criticize a position are portrayed as corrupt, immoral, or evil, so the audience dismisses their criticism before considering it.
The network it tries to appear as though it ends up sympathizing with Beale by portraying him as insane, using other characters who are horrified by what he’s doing. But every character who calls Beale crazy or criticizes his plot twists is portrayed as spiteful and dishonest.
The network managers who are exploiting him are greedy opportunists. The company’s leadership is portrayed as cold and negative. When these characters insist that Beale is unstable, the audience begins to distrust those accusers, because our perception of them is already poisoned.
The only character who really defends traditional journalism is Max Schumacher (William Holden). Unfortunately for the conflict he’s supposed to represent, Max spends the entire film cheating on his wife and giving in to the circus he says he’s against. His moral authority is gone, and the institution he protects is collapsing with him.
What Howard is doing is more authentic than the fake dog and pony show of the typical news 1970s news consumers were watching in the real world. At first, Howard’s tirades are mostly anger and frustration. His ratings are soaring and audiences are flocking to him. If he wants them to open their windows and shout “I’m shocked as hell and I’m not taking it anymore!” in the air, the city streets echo with the voice of anger.
This is where we meet the only honest actor in the film.
Screenwashed by IsAmbulo Framing
Revelation Framing it is a form of persuasion in which information is presented as if it were a shocking truth to an audience that has just discovered it. Instead of arguing the point, the message is structured as a disclosure: first, it seems that something is confusing or wrong, and then the “hidden truth” is revealed.
This often produces a sense of emotional release or catharsisbecause the audience feels like they’ve finally figured out what’s really going on. The power of the strategy comes from making people feel like they have woken up, rather than feeling like someone is trying to convince them.
By framing the idea as a deep revelation rather than an argument, the audience is encouraged to accept it as insight or enlightenment rather than critically examine it as a claim. Instead of exposing Beale as a madman, the film validates him.
Howard Beale has begun trashing his network’s parent company, so he’s brought into a meeting with conglomerate chairman Arthur Jenson, played by 1970s powerhouse Ned Beatty. Arthur Jensen doesn’t dismiss Beale’s warnings about the company’s potential. He reassures them. In one of the film’s most famous speeches, Jensen explains that the world is dominated by economic forces beyond the power of nations or voters.
The so-called movie madman is suddenly the only person who understands the truth. For the unstable Howard Beale, it’s a revelation. He says he believes he just saw God.
Howard stops his speech against the company and begins to preach a deeper truth to his audience. Not because he is corrupted, but because he has been transformed by revelation.
Screenwashed By Martyrdom Framing
Martyrdom it is a narrative device where a character is killed or punished for their beliefs, indicating to the audience that their message must have been true or threaten powerful interests.
Howard Beale’s reputation as a truth teller is cemented in the audience’s mind by the end of the film, where Beale is killed in the air. Like Jesus Christ, Socrates, and many others throughout history who were right, Howard Beale was martyred for speaking out, further cementing his status as a hero in the minds of the people. The network viewers.
How the Network Built the Hater
The film’s director, Sidney Lumet, may have intended it The network be a cautionary tale, but instead subtly sets up the audience to accept the very thing it is supposed to warn about by making the person who distorts the news into a hero surrounded by evil.
You might think that would be good, since Howard is a true communicator as well The network he pleads with the audience that they are better than newsmen who stand up and express their opinions, rather than those who sit and read the copy. That would be accurate if the audience could tell who was telling the truth and who wasn’t, but they can’t.
When The network it makes sense of the stories of people expressing opinions, it makes the good and the bad normal, it creates a new vector of media manipulation.
How the Network Changed the World for the Better
There is another way to read it. A look back in history reveals that perhaps the news has never really been neutral; it was just better to do it.
Anchors deliver narratives with soothing voices and professional postures, and immersive performances make those narratives ring true. If The network help take off that mask, it might reveal something that’s already there.
The idea did not enter the news; The network he may have indirectly helped it stop hiding. The result is ugly and often deceptive, but it’s also more honest about what the method actually is: people interpreting events, not reporting machines. In that sense, an era of loud, opinionated media may be less deceptive than a quiet one that claims to be neutral while shaping the story in the same way.
George Clooney Proves The Network Is Right
Decades later, the 2005 film Good Night, Good Luck it will silently (and mistakenly) prove. The network target by trying to trick the audience into believing the opposite. Good Night, Good Luck it was a retelling of how, in 1954, CBS reporter Edward R. Murrow ran his television news show. See It Now directly challenging the methods of Joseph McCarthy, who built a national reputation by accusing government officials, soldiers, and entertainers of Communist affiliations.
Rather than reporting directly on the controversy or providing the audience with the facts, Murrow used the entire broadcast to criticize McCarthy’s tactics. He included character assassination clips of congressman’s speeches and questions with the express purpose of persuading his audience to share his opinion: that the McCarthy investigation was a sham and should be stopped.
Murrow then put his reputation as an unbiased reporter on display to deliver a biased closing warning that the United States risks damaging its democratic values if allegations replace evidence. The broadcast was one of the first major television moments in which a national news anchor freely used his platform to challenge a powerful political figure, helping to turn public opinion against McCarthy and marking a shift in the congressman’s influence.
The only difference between Beale’s fiction and Murrow’s history is the framework. In the film directed by George Clooney, Murrow’s coverage of ideas is presented as bold journalism through a series of familiar narrative tricks. These are designed to distract listeners from bias in Murrow’s broadcast.
Murrow is purposely portrayed as the opposite of Howard Beale. You are calm, logical, and stable. His antagonist appears mainly in his worst moments. Black-and-white cinematography, smoking newsrooms, and restrained dialogue all signal integrity even though it’s not there.
The audience doesn’t just hear Murrow’s argument. They are programmed to feel responsible and rational, whether it exists or not. Take those signs apart, and the act itself looks all too familiar: a television news reporter abandoning neutrality to tell the public what to believe. Howard Beale and the original anchors who followed Murrow simply did it more and more clearly.
The Brave New World of Networking
Whether the Network intended it or not, it prepared a new kind of journalism for the audience. One where the anchor is no longer neutral. One where anger replaces reporting. One where the loudest voice in the room becomes the most trusted. In other words, it helped create the world we live in now.
Congratulations news dolls, you have been washed.
