I didn't mean to imply I want the media to suppress information because we absolutely NEED to know what is going on in ALL of the world. If we suppress information, then we might as well go back to the days when Hitler was annihilating people and getting away with it almost to the very end. I will never believe our government didn't know this slaughter was happening WHILE it was happening much sooner than it let on. No, Kenneth, we cannot, we can NEVER, tolerate suppression like that. I suspect all governments keep information of all kinds away from their people and the only way information is gradually revealed/uncovered/discovered is through the diligence of the media.
What I would like to see, however, is some good news, too. Hopeful news. The things that remind each and everyone of us that being human also means we have the potential to do great things, that we are capable of enhancing the quality of life for ALL people. I think the media is often too one-sided and perhaps, that is because they print what they KNOW will attracts readers...or maybe it's because there is just so much information and too little space.
But, you're absolutely correct in saying we have access to so much information that we feel powerless to do anything so we do nothing. (Please know I'm speaking in general and there are, of course, many exceptions.) We NEED to know about everything, but we also need to feel good about ourselves. It is when we are made to feel so much negativity that we become numb and feel nothing. If we teach ourselves NOT to feel as a way of coping, we lose our meaning, we lose our sensitivity, we lose our compassion and our motivation and our ability to do what needs to be done for the "common good" of all. We need to believe in ourselves and we can't do that if we're numb.
There's no comfort taken
in survival of the fittest
when innocence,
delicate by nature,
succumbs
unceremoniously
without having been heard
or warned.
Life is an opportunity, a challenge. It is the promise of here and now. We have the ability to choose our options, the direction in which we want to steer ourselves, the places we want ourselves to go. We have the capacity to motivate ourselves beyond indecision, beyond fear, beyond the walls we have built to keep ourselves contained. If we allow ourselves to take risks...if we open our hearts and minds...if we truly believe in ourselves...we have the power to be free...to grow...to understand...to become more.
Kenneth, there is so much that needs to be done and we can no longer afford to do so little...
The points you raise are outstanding!
-- Sally1, August 1, 1996
I agree with you 100% Sally1. As from your previous letter when you mentioned the Simpson trial, did we really need to have the amount of coverage the story got? Or do we need to hear about the TWA crash every day for months? It is like the media is out to find the most tragic story possible and then focus upon that story as though it is an obsession.
Perhaps we need a new definition of what is and what isn't "news." Not with the purpose of censorship, not to prevent reporting of all of the "bad news," but to encourage the media to go after the "good stories" as vehemently as they go after the tragic ones.
Unfortunately, people (myself included) are drawn toward the bizarre, the unusual, the out of the ordinary. Equally unfortunate is that the media must go for ratings in order to survive. If a newspaper is boring, nobody will purchase it and the business will go bankrupt. If the TV news does not draw enough viewership, the network will not be able to sell advertising time. Combine these two traits and you end up with the state of the media today...scrambling for human tragedy with which to flood the airwaves.
One solution would be to change human nature so that we are not so attracted to "bad news"...but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I doubt that people will begin boycotting the media which presents "too much bad news." And even if this were an option, do we want the people wielding that much power over the media?
Another solution would be to free the media from ratings. If we could free the media from the rigors of the economic system, if their livelihoods were not dependent upon their approval ratings, then perhaps the quality of reporting would improve. However, I see no real way to do this. (Anyone else have any ideas?) Under our current system, removing the media from economic pressures would probably require tying it to the state, which would quickly turn into a state-controlled media.
Perhaps as we are debating new political and economic structures, we should keep this in mind.
As always, thanks for your input.
Kenneth