The situation in Sudan is ongoing and unfolding and there are developments not yet covered in the media which I can’t/won’t talk about but, obviously, it is occupying my mind. My day has been filled with hurried IM conversations and emails, and alerts on every piece of news that is published on the web. There is a lot I would like to say but, in the end, a blog is media and I just can’t find it in myself to capitalise on it.
The thing is, if I wanted lots of traffic right now all I would have to do is repeat the conversations I’ve had, disclose the information I know and add a couple of meta keywords to this post. But I’m not going to. I realise that is kind of sucky for readers. Who wants to read, “I know something you don’t know and I’m not going to tell you”? Really, to be perfectly strict I shouldn’t mention it at all. But it’s on my mind. And it raises an interesting question so I’m going to move away from the specifics of this situation altogether and throw the question to the floor.
Have you ever given any thought to handling the media?
This may seem left of field. It may seem like something that people don’t need to consider. The media is other. The news is what happens to other people. But is it? Really, all it takes is a car accident, or being in a particular place at a particular time, or being related to someone who’s friend who went to school with someone else. The media has successfully invaded all our lives. It is pervasive. And it could easily come for you next. What will you say to it?
Everyman Joe is not blessed with media consultants. Perhaps Joe has the savvy to understand how his words might be used, the context they will be placed in or taken out of, the repercussions they will have. But I don’t think he does. I don’t think he knows how to manage his public relations, and I don’t think he realises that all media is public relations. Does he understand the way his words will be squeezed through filters and fed into huge databases and mixed with other people’s words until they fit into the meta narratives the media creates, even in this post-modern world? Does he realise that his words will never go away? I don’t think he does. Or, at least, not consciously enough.
Don’t we, at a minimum, need to consider whether or not this is essential knowledge? We all have a basic idea of media ethics. If by some accident of fate someone asks you to speak, will you hold yourself to those same standards? Will you have time, then and there, to figure out how those ethics relate to you? Do you know whether or not saying something even as simple as, “The best team won on the day,” or, “He was a quiet neighbour,” is really that simple? Can you weigh up all the privacy issues, the political issues, the implications, the ramifications? Do you know what narrative you will be slotted in to? Do you know which beast you are feeding?
Don’t get me wrong: I love the media. I think that we have the media to thank for a lot of the knowledge and freedom that we have. (Not as the creator of it, necessarily, but certainly as its vehicle.) But it isn’t an unmixed blessing and it isn’t tame. If it crosses your path, will you know what to do? Because you cannot call the dog-whisperer. You’re on your own. And it’s salivating.
Today, is having a clear understanding of the way the media works a social responsibility?
Related Posts
I fumed for quite a while last night after hearing on a television news teaser that people were angry about children being used at the rally held in Melbourne yesterday protesting John Howard’s industrial relations law, WorkChoices.
Firstly, who the hell is angry? I’ve waited all day to see these supposedly outraged responses reported by reputable news outlets or discussed in the Australian blogosphere. I haven’t been surprised by the dead silence.
Why? Because no one of any consequence thinks the children were being used and the only person that’s angry is me.
I’m angry that news media are more interested in manufacturing false controversy than reportage. I’m angry that network producers think viewers are so empty-headed that all news has to be sexed-up in order for us to tune in. I’m angry that network producers are so empty-headed they don’t realise there are more important things – things already sexed-up and volatile – happening in the world and that, even if we did need to be teased into watching, they could just tell the truth.
Sure, “hundreds of children, many dressed in construction hats and anti-WorkChoices T-shirts, marched with their parents” but who in their right mind would have a problem with that? Parents include their children in their lives. They are supposed to. They are supposed to teach their children right from wrong, as they see it. They are supposed to teach them not to scratch or hit or bite, supposed to teach them patience and kindness and respect.
They are supposed to teach them to respect themselves, to know themselves, to be strong in themselves and to stand up for what they believe in. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together realises that seeing your parents do just that can only be a good example for a child.
Whether we agree with those parents or not.
Australia is an apathetic country politically. A good proportion of the population has no idea how the government works and doesn’t care much about it anyway. They’ve given up. Sam de Brito over at All Men Are Liars summed up the usual approach of an Australian to politics recently. His advice when confronted with a discussion about the Federal election? “Change the subject“.
I couldn’t disagree more. Parents should talk about politics and religion and whatever else is important in the societies they live in. Parents create those societies: They are part of them. And parents should talk about all of those things with their kids. Their kids live in those societies as well: They inherit those societies. Parents have a responsibility to do this.
Whether we agree with them or not.
Personally, I don’t have a lot of faith in this system we have called “democracy”. The idea that citizens have a voice which is responded to by the elected officials who supposedly serve them is obviously ludicrous. It just doesn’t work that way and Australians know it. That’s why politicians are always near the bottom of our list of the people we trust.
But that doesn’t mean Australian society doesn’t have democratic values and it doesn’t excuse “democratic” media when they abuse those values. That lie told on television last night is particularly egregious considering that people are dying in Burma right now for doing the same thing those children were able to do.
And I’m still fuming.
The rally might not have been a very sexy event – it wasn’t particularly large, nothing new was said, and there were no tight shots of half a dozen people in a scuffle to be had so it couldn’t be described as a violent protest – but I remember as a child watching a man stand in front of a tank.
News is important even when it’s not sexy. And politics is important even when it’s futile. The only people using those children yesterday was that commercial broadcaster, which seems to think news can be manipulated as though it were a reality TV show. That’s not news: It’s disinfotainment.
And that’s not good enough.
Related Posts
