Wednesday, February 1, 2012

We Who Are About to Write, Salute You


     While students all over Florida were encouraged to live blog about the Florida primary, the media had different pursuits.

     Sure, there were gallant efforts by the politically-focused press, but the king of this week’s news is not crowned among the realms of democracy. No, almost a week before the actual event, the media is live blogging about the Super Bowl. On a site that boasts, "Where your daily sports conversation begins... and never ends." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/super-bowl-2012-media-day-live-blog-eli-manning-and-the-new-york-giants/2012/01/31/gIQASam7eQ_blog.html)  

     Now, there is no political consequence to this— so much is true. In fact, it is clear that the American publics are more interested in gladiatorial combat than Greek theater. As I have drawn parallelisms between Rome and America before and now, I probably will again. We are plagued by many of the same problems. Human nature has barely changed over thousands of years, and we still prefer sex and violence over more cultured or intellectual pursuits.

Pollice Vero, Jean-Léon Gérôme, 1872
     But that is just it.

     The commercial media and events-based journalism are built not upon the adage, “If you build it, they will come,” as the comment-based presses of many other countries are. No, it is built on supply and demand. The news is a product to be sold—not a scrutiny to evoke thought. As long as our Cerberus is appeased with bread (see: the story of Psyche in Greek mythology), he will silently allow issues to pass under his watchful eye, silenced.

     So too is our press. So long as the watchdog is given ratings and advertising income, he is placated. But while that is a problem rooted in the nature and history of our press, the solution lies in us.

     We define the demand. We can break the cycle. 

23 comments:

  1. We have the Public Press AND the Marketplace Press in the US though:

    Public: NPR, PBS
    Marketplace: CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc.

    NPR and PBS are available to a wider audience as well, as PBS is broadcast television and the marketplace channels are cable/satellite only. Even with the wider availability, the Public Press is still consistently ranked last for "popularity" (except for NPR Radio "drive time" broadcasts).

    Have we not already demanded, via our remotes and tuners?

    ReplyDelete
  2. When we have gained weight-- become complacent in our diets and our exercise regimens-- do not most people reform? In class, we have spoken n the assumption that the American consumer publics and voting publics are complacent and ill-informed. Will you deny as much? Can you?

    We've been eating the McDonalds of the American press, snacking on the mainstream media's seemingly endless buffet of infotainment and-- worse yet-- straight entertainment.

    Hard news is the bread and meat and vegetables of an informed voting public. You may not always like to read it, but you-- and our democracy, don't forget-- need you to.

    Who wants to hear about celebrity weddings? A lot of people. But a lot of people want to eat junk food, too. How many people honestly need to hear about celebrity weddings? No one. Do you need that doughnut? Hell no-- so put it down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, but what serves as the weight scale to let us know that our news diet is unhealthy? I won't deny that most people consume the "McDonalds" version of news, but it has gotten so stealthily satisfying lately that most don't realize it's "Fast Food News," and without the metaphorical scale, most will never know or even care.

      Like it or not, we get sustenance from it. We can survive on it. Not as well as "Tofu News" perhaps, but it's better than nothing.

      Delete
  3. If our entire lives were consumed with nothing but health food and straight politics, this world would be a rather dull one. I have ZERO problem admitting I like the occasional cheeseburger at Mcdonalds as well as being one of the MILLIONS who tuned into the two part kardashian wedding. In a world FILLED with violence, poverty, starvation, terror, war and many things evil I like to turn on the market place influenced television channels and watch a wedding of kardashian stature because for a hour or so I can pretend that the world is not so serious and global warming is not breathing down my neck.
    Last night I had a large party focused around the football game. MIllions of other people in the United States crowded around their televisions to watch this one game that happens once a year. Before the game the media will focus on the game because millions of people are planning their lives around this one game. When you walk into publix, party city, walmart or any other major store you find food, balloons, clothing, and other things to sell to the people who will in turn buy almost all of the stock in each store. I should know, party city was sold out of my damn giants balloon I wanted yesterday, thank god publix had one.
    Anyway, my point is- obviously the millions of people who tuned into football last night couldn't go with out it. The millions of people who tuned into Kim Kardashian's wedding to "hump", the most watched television show in E! history, obviously felt like they needed to watch that show. And on a personal note, I do need to hear about celebrity weddings, it keeps my life a tad less depressing, and as for the donut- I need that too, just way to yummy to pass up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally loved that episode of the Kardashians. Also, I think this conversation is kind of going against democracy and our ability to be sovereign entities...no one is telling me I can't watch my sunday football game and my primetime Kardashians or Real Housewives of OC.

      Delete
    2. Completely agree. The thing we hold so dear to our hearts, the big "D", is what makes us such an amazing country. It allows me to be able to eat whatever I want, voice my opinion, and watch whatever i want on television. It also allows everyone to have their own opinion even if their opinion is wrong to someone else.

      Delete
  4. I agree with you, Brianna.

    But as it stands now, we are on the end of the spectrum that subsists on the "Fast Food Media" (Stealing Sam's term-- I really like it) and snacks on the "tofu" variety. Arguably, it should be the other way around.

    However Sam's point stands: What objective scale shall we use? I see a blog post topic brewing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I dont feel like any of us are really should say what is best for the rest of the millions of americans. Perhaps you feel it is best for you to get the "tofu" variety of media but there are millions of people who are perfectly fine with their "fast food" media and might prefer it. Im sure those people would disagree with you that it should be the other way around. When it comes down to it many americans don't want to hear about the economic crisis in Europe after they just lost a multi million dollar deal or got laid off from work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am currently doing those occupy wall street finger shaking high in the air....lol.

      Delete
  6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2EPKKVrqI

    ReplyDelete
  7. Moral of this story: Be the change you want to see! Get your news diet in shape! Donate to your favorite Public Radio affiliate and write to your congressman or senator to demand that these national treasures be kept safe from further budget cuts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Forgive me if I offend you, Brianna. I have no issue with you as a person. However, I sharply disagree with your ideas, and I have a tendency to be passionate.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Unhealthy is unhealthy. I can't solve the nation's obesity problems through being healthy myself. The government can, however, by taxing fast foods and putting restrictions on what food stamps can buy.

    Frankly, I don't care what is best for millions of individual Americans. I care what is best for the democracy they represent. You cannot deny that a more informed voter creates a better democracy, and that the collective intelligence of the group determines the efficiency and intelligence of the system. We are only as strong as our weakest link, only as good as our least informed voter.

    In class, we spoke about the public vs. the marketplace. You suggest that we are strictly a marketplace-- a collection of consumers. Are we? Or are we the driving force behind one of-- if not the-- the largest world powers?

    Be realistic. We have to fill both roles. And if our joys as a consumer inhibit our usefulness as a citizen, we must sacrifice the former for the greater good.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The foreword applies to you as well, Christine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Amber,

    Not sure what you are referring to in respect to the "foreward".

    I don't disagree with some of your sentiments, but I would like a clarification or expansion of your argument. (Perhaps a new blog post, indeed.)

    I also bemoan the tendency for Americans to "feast" on worthless media and only "snack" on the meaningful and informative, but your forceful language is intriguing. How and why do your propose that citizens must "sacrifice for the greater good"? Does the government have a role here? If so, what is it? The government already funds (though not as much as they should) public media alternatives like Public Radio and PBS. Should people be forced to tune in to these? Or do you propose that the government fund more projects like this? Perhaps we could do with one less major network like CNN or MSNBC and let the government take ownership of it? In short, what sort of action do you suggest?

    I also find it interesting that your conclusion emphasizes a very utilitarian and perfunctory role of a citizen under the premise of doing what's best for "the greater good" or (earlier) "what is best for democracy". You claim to have disregard for what is best for Americans, but then what good is the preservation of democracy once this premise is tossed aside? I'm wary of the idea of forcing any type of information on the population in the name of democracy but if you could clarify your ideas, I might be persuaded.

    It is of course, easy to pick apart what someone else has said. If I had to offer my opinion on this, I'd say I think the public media institutions already in place or good ones. Do I wish that the government would support them with better funding? Of course. (Maybe more people would turn into PBS if they were able to update their outdated set or the anchors were able to buy some more fashionable suits.) Perhaps we could follow Norway's example and even have a publicly funded newspaper that was free (that way we'd have the trifecta of tv, radio, and periodicals). Funding civic education is important too.

    At the end of the day, I don't think information should be forced down any citizens' throat in the name of an improved democracy. Though I'm not one to disparage civic activism at the lowest level or one to tell you that your vote doesn't count, I think it's important to note that we have a democratic republic -- one in which we elect officials to be responsibly informed. We have the institution of the electoral college. The founding fathers allowed room for Kardashian fanactics in the constitution.

    I also fear that we disparage those escapist citizens among us too harshly. Remember when Dr. Hill said he goes home and would rather watch Bravo than CNN? That hardly makes him an ill-informed citizen. My parents work every day with Department of Defense Intelligence and they feel laregely the same way as Dr. Hill when they get home. I would be lying if I didn't admit I often check gawker when I get home from school before I check up on the nytimes. Are there people that over indluge on that stuff and ignore everything else? Sure. But my only instict is to feel sorry for them instead of try to forcibly change them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I COMPLETELY agree with you christine. Forcing, or stating that citizens need to purge themselves of the fast food media for the greater good (paraphrasing here), makes me believe that we are wanting to force those who enjoy their down time watching bravo or better yet E! (haha) to watch the more "appropriate" channels. Forcing people into more informed television or media is neglecting them of the thing that makes us so great, democracy. Plus, I do not need the government owning a television program focusing on the news because the bias that would come about from that would be much worse in comparison to msnbc vs fox news. Not to mention we do not have the funds at the moment to have such feature.

      Delete
  11. I'm not telling you you can't. I'm not even telling you you shouldn't. I'm saying that you are more useful to your democracy when you spend that time more effectively. As in, learning. Do with it what you may. The forceful language does not represent an argument to be presented: it was meant only to get people thinking and talking, which it seems to have done quite effectively. We have opened a dialogue, now, just as the Abu Ghraib articles opened a national dialogue on torture.

    I intend to be the change I see in the world, and try to do so every day. I can't donate or anything, but I do watch.

    Lastly, you must remember that Dr Hill and your parents are exceptions-- not the rule. The rule gets catastrophes like Bush elected. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not even know where to begin with you last comment regarding our former president. First, I would hardly compare this dialogue to a national dialogue regarding torture. Your comparing apples to oranges. Us watching "junk food television" is not a crime against humanity, it is not a crime against democracy, and is not a crime in any sense of the word. Therefor, not many people are going to find it to be much of a problem or issue. However, the torture that was presented from Abu Ghraib paints of picture of a hypocritical government or army. Every single time there is a crime against humanity, Americans rush in and feel obligated to help them. We have preached peace for years, gone to Libya and supported them in their reform towards a more humanitarian, more democratic form of government and rule. We wrote in our newspapers about all of the horrible things happening in Syria and whether or not we should jump in and be a humanitarian aid. Yet, we torture soldiers from the other side. And that is why millions of americans became up in arms and started a dialogue.
      In regards to calling our former president Bush a Catastrophe, I would like to see how most college students would deal with september 11th, I applaud him for his efforts and though I do not agree with president Obama's politics, he is my president and I wouldnt call him a catastrophe, but thats just me.

      Delete
    2. First, This is hardly an open dialogue that can be comparable to Abu Ghraib. Secondly, In response to your blatant subjective politically biased comment towards one of our previous presidents. Over the last 40 years or so, we’ve become a society of divided people who respect the office of President when “one of our own” is the one holding it, this applies to the media as well. When we don’t like who won the last election, then respect for the office means nothing…until we can get one of our own elected again, and then we demand that everyone start respecting the office again. To be fair, this is true of ALL extremists — right and left. To be even more fair, the extreme right that is apparently now represented by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, have made this a very lucrative art form. Thirdly, this is why i have ZERO interest in whatever you say on this blog or in class. You critique the media yet you follow their same models. RIDICULOUS. Clearly you need to read some more and experience a bit more college, one semester isnt enough. Especially when you are lacking support and have three seniors all disagreeing with you who are all at varying degrees of the spectrum.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree with Brianna and Beth. In fact, I'm sort of wondering why I have chosen to get involved in this fight. However, there are two things I must say. First, saying that we need things and trying to get the government to force us to have them through regulation and taxes stands in direct opposition to the capatilist system that we Americans love. CNN, Fox, and the like are private corporations entitled to publish whatever they like. Our founding fathers fought a revolution so that we could have the FREEDOM to make our own choices. To force Americans to have "tofu" media would be to render what those brave Americans who founded this country fought and died for useless; it would be to disregard the Constitution. I love this country and I love the freedom that every American has to do whatever, or watch whatever, they please. Taking away that freedom by forcing Americans to watch the "tofu" media would be the end of democracy; not the key to a better one.

    Ohh, and second, lets not throw personal insults at former presidents. None of them have been perfect, not Washington, not Lincoln, not JFK, not Reagan, not Bush, not Obama. President Bush took responsibility for the almost 3,000 lives lost on September 11 (a real catastrophe). From that moment on, he was bound to not let anything like that happen again on his watch. Sure, he enacted some policies that weren't the best, but he protected our nation because he felt he had to do so. I challenge one of you to put yourself in his shoes and say you wouldn't do the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Robbie. I have always wondered what others would have done in the situation George Bush was forced to deal with. Its very easy for others to say what president Bush did was wrong, yet no one ever says they would do something differently.

      Delete
  14. Well,

    I don't know. See, I'm a junior. I'm actually a senior if we're going by credits. That might make me more in debt than a lot of other students, but I'm not so sure it makes me smarter. Intelligence is multi-dimensional; everyone's a genius in one thing and at least in my case a complete moron at everything else. I always try to tell myself before I open my mouth to speak that most of the time what I'm about to say is probably blatantly wrong.

    Having said that, sometimes a call to action is meant more as a plea than as an excuse for oppression. We cannot feel oppressed by what someone else says or suggests except by our consent.

    And while a debate on the Koalemian epic that was the Bush administration is important and meaningful, I honestly don't see how it has anything to do with the current discussion.

    ReplyDelete