Dominating the headlines this week: another rich, powerful, good-looking public figure had an affair. Once again, we collectively express our shock and disgust. Yet it appears that neither our shock nor our disgust keeps us from voraciously gobbling up one incarnation after another of this non-story. Thus the media continue serving generous portions.

Come on, country. Being shocked at dalliances of the rich and powerful is like being shocked anew every time it’s revealed that fast food ain’t all that healthy. A rich, powerful, good-looking celebrity who has never cheated—that would be news.

What’s more, the outraged public is largely hypocritical. If you don’t believe me, check the infidelity statistics of non-public figures. Or, for that matter, check how many decriers of fast food actually live on the stuff.

I don’t blame the media for escalating the Woods story, despite the war, the recession, human rights and other issues. To survive, the media must market themselves like any other profit-making enterprise. Marketing consists of delivering what the public wants. It’s not the media’s job to make us eat our vegetables.

People who express disgust at what the media purvey misplace their disgust. If the public didn’t willingly consume sensationalistic tripe, overnight the media would cease delivering it.

Steve Cuno
 


Comments

towr
12/10/2009 10:31

I don't entirely agree. Just because people are willing to consume sensationalist tripe doesn't acquit the media from serving it; anymore than consumption of illegal drugs acquits drug traffickers. Or, indeed, the example of fast food you mentioned.

I will however agree with "don't [i]just[/i] blame the media"; but they still deserve some blame. Just because people are buying is not in itself an excuse to sell.

Reply
CJ Sevilla
12/10/2009 21:08

One of the final essays my class had to present this semester had to be about anything in the subject of "media". Out of twenty students, five did their papers on the "unfair" portrayal of attractive women and five did theirs on the "cult of celebrity" or why we shouldn't be concerned with celebrities, and how gullible and controlling the MEDIA is for feeding us these stories.

It was all annoying babble. What especially bothered me was that all of them took exception to what the media was presenting them with this condescending attitude of "everyone ELSE sees these women as beautiful and that's unfair" or "why does everyone worship celebrities so much?" implying that they didn't. If they weren't hypocrites then they were certainly misplacing blame on why the media covers what it does.

The media as a whole seems like something too nebulous to really complain about. Like when people blame society or the culture for whatever the want to blame it for. I don't know, I could be wrong. Have you heard justified complaints toward the media?

Reply
Steve Cuno link
12/11/2009 09:44

I think all kinds of complaints against the media are justified. But it's important to recognize that the media are consumer-driven. They prosper when they deliver what the market consumes. This does not relieve them of moral responsibility. It simply points out the responsibility is shared by a public that prefers not to acknowledge its own role and power.

Our society is adept at ducking and placing blame. "The media made us do it" is the secular version of "the devil made me do it." Neither holds up.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply