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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and ...
1 comment
Read more

The Will of the People

Many of the most criminal political minds of the past generations have claimed to be an expression of the "will of the people"... The will of the people, that is, as interpreted by themselves. Most authoritarian rulers: Napoleon III, Mussolini, Hitler, have called referendums in order to claim some spurious popular support for the actions they had already determined upon. The problem with the June 2016 European Union was that the question was actually insufficiently clear. To leave the EU was actually a vast set of choices, not one specific choice. Danial Hannan, once of faces of Vote Leave was quite clear that leaving the EU did NOT mean leaving the Single Market:    “There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.” He declared: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market.” The problem was that this relatively moderate position was almost immediately ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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 ...
20 comments
Read more