Skip to main content

Hurricane Media

As a relatively small hurricane moves the east coast of the United States in a relatively rare direct hit, can really be the only one to regard the media coverage as ludicrous?

Every trite cliche, every slick and empty phrase has been trotted out in support of the IMPORTANCE OF THE STORY, and for a day or two it will doubtless be a nuisance to my friends on the East Coast.


It is not, however, the end of the world if New York experiences a bit of sea flooding- and the City and indeed the country are well prepared: Hurricane Katrina, this ain't.

So why treat it as though it is?

This is news as a horror show. This is news as "entertainment".

It shows the media at its most base, most trivial, and most dangerous. The great pictures and the potential for nasties justifies the massive editorial commitment to the story, even if -as we hope, and as seems likely- it turns into a pretty minor event.

Such editorializing should remind us of the essentially tabloid nature of television. Immediate images and glib phrases, however, are not information. Indeed the immediate emotional impact of a powerful image can actually be irrational. We believe our eyes- yet television is a remarkably, and increasingly, dishonest medium.

As we "discover" the negative health impact of watching television for hours on end (well, duh!), it is easy to lose sight of the negative intellectual impact of television. Long gone are the glory days of David Attenborough's BBC 2, home of the Ascent of Man, Civilisation , Life on Earth, Horizon, Chronicle and Monty Python. The audiences of tens of millions who watched these landmark programmes have now shrunk to a level that is said to be too small to sustain the costs that it takes to make them. The cheap and trashy shows that were always a feature of the telly and now dominant. Ever increasing sensation and vulgarity have coarsened much in our society.

Television news has also dumbed-down to a level that is barely believable to those raised on the magisterial reporters of the 1960s or 1970s: Walter Cronkite, Alistair Cooke, Mark Tully, Alistair Burnet and Sandy Gall.

So as image becomes the measure of a story, I find myself thinking that the integrity of the news media has now evaporated. It is this breakdown in integrity that I see across many other realms of human activity- from politics to science- yet it is in the media where the rot seems most putrid.

The media can not hold anyone else to account when it is itself so bound up in its own corruption. The Murdoch scandal has revealed how deep seated that corruption has become. Now the trivial and trite banalities being sprayed around like a hurricane storm surge in today's coverage shows just how incapable television now seems of creating its own remedy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...