GREY MATTER: Media Brainwash
[Originally published: Issue #5, circa 1988]
After reading Alexandr Solzehnitzky's A World Split Apart, I now, more than ever, strongly believe that the American media is dominated by trends. When I say media, I mean newspapers, news telecasts, information magazines, etc. From week to week, a new "news fad" will become the nation's foremost concern and will be plastered all over newspapers, Time, and Newsweek, and you will find all news programs concentrating on it. This lasts until the next fad hits, and the old one is nearly forgotten. For example, a year ago people were screaming about AIDS so much that it seemed that a plague of biblical (sorry atheists!) proportions was upon us. Shortly thereafter, the media turned its attention to teenage drug use {"Just Say No"), sex scandals, (Hart and Rice, Bakker and Hahn), and other things. From the decrease in the reporting/mentioning of AIDS, you'd think that the problem ceased to exist. But did it? (The answer is no, for those of you scoring at home.) If anything, the problem got worse, but it didn't matter because America's "news audience” (people who buy newspapers, watch the news on TV, etc.) was bored and need something new and exciting to be "most concerned” about. The only tine a single issue should dominate the media is in the case of a one-time happening or current event (for example, an earthquake, etc.).
But why does this happen? I guess America's attention span is considered to be so short that they tire quickly of hearing about the same issue and need a new “pressing issue” to discuss with their friends and at work, and more newspapers are thereby sold, and watching the nightly news seems vital. Why can't there be an even blend of topics presented in the media? It should be that the problems are concentrated on, solved (or more realistically, helped), and then we move on, while keeping an eye on the previous problem to keep it from becoming a major problem again. But that's not how it happens. It's more like a problem is concentrated on, milked for all its worth, and then shoved to the back of our minds. A prime example of what I'm talking about happened just about a year and a half ago. It's Nancy Reagan's anti-drug campaign. (I'm not against an anti-drug movement, but I am opposed to giving so much power to a woman who's only qualification or achievement was marrying an actor.) Once this campaign began, we were led to believe that every person (especially teenagers) in America was either on drugs, selling drugs, or both. Alot of money was sanctioned for this program, Nancy made numerous personal appearances, the program was given extensive coverage, and there were all sorts of television specials on the topic. But it was only a matter of time before the media turned its attention to other things, and as a result, the funding of this program was cut off. Gee, I guess people stopped doing and selling drugs? No, I don’t think so.
What I'd like to know is: Who controls the media? Solzehnitsky points out that Western journalists have no obligations to the public. At times this does seem true. We've all seen pictures of someone leaving a court room or at the scene of a great tragedy and someone filming it. I always wonder why some reporter would go sticking his camera in people's faces after, for example, they were the only survivors of a fire. Do they do it because of a dedication to reporting the news to the American masses, or do they just want to have some great pictures to sell to the TV station and newspapers? Solzehnitsky also said 'I that lack of censorship allows these news fads to run rampant. This may be true, but I don't think any kind of censorship could possibly be good. However, I do agree that little or no effort is made to correct false or exaggerated press.
So what is the alternative? Maybe it's realization of news fads. There isn't a simple solution.
[If anyone is interested, Alexandr Solzehnitzky wrote A World Split Apart while in a Russian concentration camp. While in the camp, he was not permitted to have pencil and paper, so he memorized, or "wrote” it in his head, and then put it down on paper after finally being released. He criticizes the Western culture and communism, too. His critique of the press is just a small part of his criticism of the Western civilization. It's a really interesting book, especially considering the fact that you would expect somebody who has suffered the ills of the East (being put in a concentration camp without being told why) would come to the West and still be critical. He also tells of the evils of communism, and its effects on the people.]
by Tony