SEX, DRUGS, ROCK AND ROLL... Have I got your attention? Not that I need it; those three words have probably done that for me. ‘Sensationalising;’ the idea that anything can be made attractive reading given a twist, mixed with something slightly ‘risqué,’ dark and uncomfortable.
Consumers of news are so much more likely to ‘consume’ it at the most superficial level; we (and I include myself for I have been at fault for reading stories that aren’t exactly gospel), ignore the truth in favour of a quick fix of scandal, a shot of gritty detail, or a tab of misfortune for some other poor soul. Let’s be honest, we like to make ourselves feel better about the elements of our life with which we are entirely dissatisfied.
Take the Leveson enquiry. I for one am in agreement that a self regulating industry such as the media are long overdue a good hauling in front of a jury and being made accountable for their actions. But this enquiry in itself opens more cans of worms than I believe is possible to address. Lets be honest, the power the media wield in every aspect of day to day life is immense; they know what makes the public tick and they are a formidable force to come up against. With that in mind, what exactly is Lord Leveson planning to change about the state of media ethics (or lack of…); I hardly think that the outcome of this enquiry is going to produce ground breaking new regulations.
Perhaps the Tories (I wont waste time in mentioning Nick), are on a(nother) new campaign to convince us that they do in fact have some element of control; they are not puppets to powerful industries and institutions like the media, no way! Furthermore, they will not tolerate naughty boys (and girls it would seem…ahem News International Executive Rebekah Brooks). Good effort lads, id expect no less than a slap on the wrist and no Christmas cards from number 10 next year for those boys down at the newspaper stand. As long as they are SEEN to be doing something. Sure public perception is everything these days, we don’t care about ethics.
Here comes the link. So if the majority of people reading newspapers are looking for sensational stories to make themselves feel much better, or less guilty, about their own lives, surely that means that secretly we all rather enjoy hearing about those things that may delve in to the private lives of said celebrities. I’m not for one second saying it is right, i'm saying that Murdock and buddies will sell a lot less newspapers if they’re seen without some tantalising front page blurt.
Put these two ideas together and in my head we very soon come up with a moot point. Yes, do stop the media from slandering unsuspecting celebrities, forcing their way into houses, hounding the families of victims. But heaven help all of us if we open the newspaper on a Sunday morning and there are no one liners of chastisement and accusation. Furthermore, is there really any difference in what the Leveson enquiry is targeting, and a tabloid who takes pictures of a celebrity out buying a loaf for breakfast? At the very core of the issue probably not; we might complain about the stories but we’re the ones reading them.
To stretch this out further, why is it that we clearly like to read superficial stories that have no consequences? Comfort food in words. Probably because it is just that, no guilt if we didn’t take the snaps, we can smooth that over with a quick tut and a turn of the page. We really can’t be bothered reading something that just might tug our consciences. Lets not talk about ethnic cleansing in South Sudan; famine relief in the horn of Africa is soo 2011 it is unreal, and where’s Haiti? Hold on until I get my dust covered map out.
Perhaps, media psychology plays a part. We do not want to read about despicable goings on like those mentioned above. Call it child-like but no person wants to admit to the capability of human cruelty. The power of self deception allows us to forget that these atrocities ever occurred, even though we know they go on, there is no ‘evidence’ in the news, therefore they aren’t happening. In this way our bubble stays air tight.
This questions the very reason for the media. Is it to regulate our moods and boost us when life is not so easy? Fanciful and superficial stories clearly sell better in a recession where we do not want more bad news of the world.
This brings me back to the first point I made. Sensationalising stories in the media draws attention. We won’t read about the civil war between north and south Sudan because for one thing it rarely makes the news at 10, and for another we are tired of hearing about war and famine and the struggle in Africa. Sure we did our bit for the nation in the 80s with the AIDS problem and big Bob with his genius publicists. Sorry, Bob and his massive heart (and wallet). Who cares if one child still dies every three seconds while just 1% of the world’s population have a university degree? The point is that the news isn’t really that edgy anymore. Give us something exciting, something like the latest celebrity to eat a hamburger or something. That’ll soon feed our appetites for scandal.
Forget the media; let’s ask where our compassion is. We are all human beings, even the celebrities asking for privacy, even those living on less than a $1 a day…..
No comments:
Post a Comment