The Invisible Robes

The idea of media literacy feels like the conman's invisible robes sometimes. 

The folk tale is one of humorous intent. It's simply a conman showing up at a king's doorstep informing him that he is currently being presented with a special kind of robe, one that is only visible to those that are intelligent and wise. The king, wishing to appear wise before his subjects, and the subjects all wishing to appear wise before their king all agree: they can see the robes.

Unfortunately for them, it is a ruse of the conman’s, and when the king wears this robe, he is parading around naked.

That's what I think back to when I think about media literacy and media influence. I can tell it exists based on simple observation, however how can I ever be sure of its existence in the media I consume?

I could play the skeptic and declare that all the media I consume has some sort of bias; bias that I cannot spot, but bias, that I claim, is present. In doing so, I would be getting influenced by media that informs me that media exerts influence and perhaps in its own twisted way, I'd cease to be the skeptic. 

In that scenario I'd be like the king, attempting to prove that I am media literate and wise by pointing out that the robe is there, the influence is there.

Or, I could play the fool, that laughs at the king for wearing nothing, and be laughed at by the king because I do not see the robe that he is wearing (which even he does not see).

In doing so I'd say, yes the media is biased, but I don't believe in it exerting much greater influence than my grandmother's ramblings. It would inform the world of matters of importance, but beyond that have no conscious or planned effect on opinions, values and principles.

The fate of the fool is to be laughed at in this context. Where the fool attempts to put out the fire of idiocy lit by the conman and the king in accepting his ruse. 

Perhaps I truly am the fool and the king truly does see the robes, however I'm simply too foolish to perceive it.

In any case we take, in any scenario that is true, one thing remains constant: the victory of the conman. The conman setup the game and we could have chosen to not play it from the very beginning, but we chose the contrary. 

One could argue the importance of discussing the nature of the conman's proposition to determine the proper truth, however, I have found that it is often much better for the mind and the soul to not indulge such matters as deeply as I have.

If the conman’s robes exist, ask him what they appear as, then individually and in confidence, ask the others. One by one as you gather the answers from them all, you will see if the influence exists, or it is simply a ruse. That's when the conman can lose. When we take away his one tool of utter confusion.