The Media
When did this simple word become so sullied? And when did it cease to have credibility as a concept? Part of the problem is that we’ve known since McLuhan that the medium is the message, which in those simpler times tended to mean that the information was colored by the way it was presented. But what about information that simply isn’t there? Information that has been removed? What happens when all we have is the medium itself, and the message has been almost entirely subsumed?
What do we do, for example, when a major newspaper like the Boston Globe ignores a Peace rally held on Boston Common, in the very center of Boston, a rally that brought an estimated 10,000 people together? What if our local paper fails to mention it? It did that on for October 27th’s rally. Is the message here that we should only protest directly outside the Globe’s own offices if we want to be noticed at all? Would that be any better?
In contrast there was plenty of coverage of the Red Sox’s triumphal parade – as there should have been, since it was a major celebration, as well as being an event that shut down parts of the city. As I watched some of the TV coverage I noticed that some of the banners held up by young fans, who had certainly skipped classes for the event, were idiosyncratic. ‘Congradulations’ read one. ‘We Beleive’ read another. This, from the kids who are skipping school. Is there a message there, too, perhaps?
To return to the Globe: in Sunday’s ‘Ideas’ section Jeff Jacoby lamented that no one reads newspapers any more. Poor baby, thought I. He blamed it all on TV, predictably enough, and yet another complex problem got reduced to overly-simplistic blaming. When the media stops removing important news, when it ceases from its facile finger pointing, and stops its celebration of the safe and obvious – then we might have a medium that’s worth reading.
on November 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pm
It’s unconscionable the way the media eludes responsible reporting these days! Time for the people to speak up! If we stop buying The Boston Globe they might wise up. There are better sources of insight.
on November 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
Thanks Allan:
The ostensible job of the media is to let people know what’s abroad in the land. On a more subtle level, the media assigns hierarchical importance to those events as you demonstrate by your contrast of coverage for the Peace Rally and the Red Sox. Thus, you remind me to keep my own counsel, observe my own signifiers.
Did you send the above to the Globe? Did they print it? If not, perhaps extend it a bit for op-ed piece?
Since I haven’t been reading the Globe lately, I might not have noticed this. Thanks Allan.
MLou
on November 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Dear MaryLou,
Thanks so much for your advice and encouragement. The Globe printed my letter today, Sunday, in which I made a somewhat milder series of points about Jacoby and the media generally. Well, one has to be relatively polite or one won’t be published, and so the point gets lost completely. (And that’s how self censorship creeps in…)
Fortunately many other letters have arrived at the Globe protesting their failure to report the Peace rally. Today there was a very strong one from a Veteran who marched in the rally to the Senate house. And yet none of this letter writing can truly correct the error, because many readers don’t look at the letters section, and most of them won’t think back a whole week to consider what was missing from the reporting. So even though theoretically we have the right to make our point, by the time it has been made it is necessarily far weaker. 10,000 people turned up for that march including a whole platoon of veterans. That was a statement! The Globe buried it, just as the letter writers are also buried in the back pages.
Who says censorship isn’t alive?
As ever, Allan
on November 4th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I saw your letter first thing this morning. One letter, one voice. Great job.
I wonder if your polite letter-writing-Globe-cred hasn’t already earned you space on the opposite page.
If you redraft your original blog to include the above, You’d have an op-ed which would include the vocie of some vetrans.
By printing your opinion, the Globe expands its viewpoint without retracting what they did - or did not say.
The Globe asks for feedback. Take them up on it.
I think you could do it. Then sign it Dr. Allan Hunter, author of “The Sanity Manual ” (or which of your titles you prefer) and the forthcoming _______.
(Old publicists never die, they just keep nagging their friends.)
Warm regards,
MLou