Quote:
Originally Posted by Strangelet
Cacaophony, the argument, it seems to me, boils down to whether or not you can say the media acted responsibly *EVEN IF* the worst case scenario was realized. Clearly the answer is no. Even if this thing turned into spanish flu, the media was not informative, it was stoking anxiety. To prove that point, someone can simply sit through the days of american network television coverage and count how many minutes were spent covering actual facts and information and how many minutes were spent covering looped, fetishized, stories of anxiety. Would I be making an up-at-night assumption if I claimed to know how that experiment would turn out?
|
i guess i see it from a different perspective. most of the "media" you're describing is entertainment media. i don't expect much from them. i see CNN sending sanjay gupta to mexico so he can mingle unmasked (*gasp*) with the infected and i see entertainment. not news.
i think you have to be choosy with your news sources. and frankly, the public consumes the coverage it wants regardless of the truth of the situation. we at webmd have tried to put this into perspective from the beginning by pointing out that the "regular" flu kills 36,000 people every year. pneumonia kills upwards of 60,000, and those figures are for the US alone. and while we've had incredible traffic, totally breaking all records since the site's launch, people consume what they want to consume. if they want to consume the "symptoms" article more than they want to consume the "why you shouldn't worry" article, that's a self-directed preference.
i'm not arguing that the media is a responsible outlet for information. i'm saying the public's desire for the excitement of doom drives a lot of the hysterical coverage.
look, i manage the cancer content for the site. i'm responsible for knowing the user base, knowing the conditions, and providing responsible information that people will consume. and i will tell you with absolutely no exaggeration that the most responsible perspective piece will never EVER hold a candle to the fearful content in terms of audience consumption. penile cancer is one of the rarest cancers on earth but people consume the "symptoms" content in quantities that put it on par with a REAL public health issue like diabetes.
i'm also not arguing that the media should cover the worst just because we have a natural human tendency to dwell on the worst. i'm just saying there's a call-and-response relationship between the audience and media outlets. when people stop consuming it, media moves on to the next drama.
i just think it's far too easy to point at media and cry, "YOU'RE THE SOURCE OF ALL OUR PROBLEMS!" it's easier than admitting that we're the source of our problems, too.