If I sound like I’m condoning the media’s inattention here, I’m not. My explanation is meant as a criticism. Given audience demands—especially at a time when traditional media companies aren’t doing so well—it’s impossible to avoid the stories with the most buzz and the strongest narratives. Nor should we. But that doesn’t mean urgency shouldn’t factor into the equation as well. In this case, the most urgent aspects of the oil spill and the Times Square attack had already been covered to death; the culprit was already caught, the containment was already underway. And yet we still kept rehashing each of those stories—and fighting about politics—while thousands of homes and business were destroyed and dozens of people died. That matters. Media silence means public ignorance, and public ignorance means fewer charitable donations, slower aid, and less political pressure. If that’s not reason enough to cover the flood, I don’t know what is.
We’ll say it again: Romano’s really smart, and has a really nice take here.
Not to mention an inability to know who to vote out of office for screwing up the response to that last disaster...
Remember, kids, democracy only works with an *informed* public. If you think the American public is informed, I've got a bridge to sell you--wait--better yet, just hand me your wallet.
No comments:
Post a Comment