CMJR 450- Week 8 Response

Response to “Nyanko-Yuki” Blog Question #1:

Question 1: Today, when you turn on the news, what do you get – crime, disasters, and deaths. Why do you think these topics have become so interesting (or hot topics) for us? Many newspapers, broadcasted news, and internet news sites focus on tragic and disaster stories. There might be something important that the public should hear about. Truly news-worthy things are getting dropped by editors for stories that will interest (or entertain) the public. Where do social movements fall in today’s category of “new-worthy” topics. According to our text (in chapter 14) it is very difficult for non-profits, social movements, and protests to get decent coverage. “[N]early all media are controlled by corporations, and the electronic media are licensed by the government. There is little inclination to report on social agitators or to see them as newsworthy.” (PASM, pg.327) Do you think it is fair for social movements to be kept from the public? How can social movements get news coverage while keeping a non-violent profile?


My Response:

It is true that most of the time we turn on the television we get crime, disasters and death. We typically also get a little bit of weather and sports coverage but that is a topic for another discussion. I do not necessarily think these topics have become interesting or hot topics for us, I think that we have fallen into a world that uses sensationalism to sell airtime to advertising companies. The more viewers you have the more the time slot costs and money is what makes the world go round. Lets face it, that is just the way it is.
In case most people haven’t noticed we are surrounded with exceptions to the rule. The norm is typically never shown and what is shown are the outliers in a society based on norms. We don’t even think about it but these unique circumstances are all around us every day. In most of the advertisements, television commercials for products, bill boards, you name it, we are surrounded by people born with the genetic exceptions of having 6 pack abs, abnormally white and perfect teeth, perfect skin, model like complexion, perfect hair, the list goes on and on. Thanks to adobe photo shop and the ability to literally airbrush out all the imperfections in any human person, it is no wonder we expect such perfection.
I know that this doesn’t pertain to this class but I have had multiple classes that discuss how some models don’t look the same in person then in pictures and do you know what advertisers do? They literally take 3 or 4 different body parts from different people (i.e. a specific kind of nose, bust size, smile and eyes) and use Photoshop to create an image that is really 4 different people photo shopped into 1 supermodel. We are creating actual people in advertisements that look nothing like their true identity because we have this desire to seek perfection in an imperfect world. The only way to create this kind of demand for perfection is to show imperfection and that is what crime, disasters and murder establish. Those categories establish the deviants and reinforce what we consider to be the norm, that murder is bad, disaster is bad and crime is bad.
I’m also taking a sociology class and from the studies of people like Erving Goffman what is occurring is a form of dramaturgy. We are constantly actors, giving different performances and we will do just about anything as the audience to pretend that even when actors fall out of character we still save face pretending that everything is alright. I believe this is what’s happening with the news as well. We see disaster and tragedy and we watch it because we are constantly living in this world where by seeing disaster and tragedy we can pretend that everything is still perfect. By watching disaster in the form of crime, murder and natural disasters we automatically as human beings identify what is the opposite of these things. Therefore, by watching these things on the news we 1) see things that aren’t typical and it naturally interests us and 2) watch them knowing that we could see those things and that our lives are actually just fine.
I agree that some news is important and the public should hear about it, but we have become consumed as a society and culture that wants to hear about how bad things are so we can see how good we have it in our own lives. Yes, there is news people should hear about and yes 3 or 4 major corporate conglomerate and telecommunication giants own all the broadcast sources of mainstream media in the world (i.e. Rupert Murdoch) but the fact is that what we are watching now sells time slots. If you take those same non-profits or social movements and then subject them to the lens of what we are interested in (i.e. crime, disaster and death) I guarantee you they will get coverage. This is why when social movements that are peaceful in nature solicit unjustified violence they get media coverage. Earth First is an example of how this tactic can be successful.
I also think it is very important how media is understood and discussed. It is true that corporate conglomerates own the main media sources such as television, newspapers, movies, radio channels, magazines and some Internet sites. However, the beauty is the size and reach of the Internet. Thanks to sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Myspace and various other Internet sites (those are only a few main ones) anyone can broadcast just about anything they want to send out in the form of a digital message. This is one of the reasons why the Obama campaign was so successful in getting people to donate money and put together rallies. The Obama campaign realized the power of the Internet to form groups and organize people. In reading Nyanko-Yuki’s question again, if the public wants to hear about something it is their job to find out about it. Most people know that their news isn’t 100% accurate and if they want to find out something they can always resort to the Internet.
Today social-movements fall into the category of, figure out a good way to sell your organization and your cause and people will want to find out more about you. It is now the job of these social movements to broadcast their cause and create their own coverage. Just because the 9 O’clock news doe not publish their story does not mean they can’t be viewed to heard about. Yes, the book does say that it is difficult for non-profits, social movements, and protests to get decent coverage but with the right form of advocacy they can get coverage by the mainstream media as well. If you have enough hits on any one of those sites, organize a massive demonstration where 1000’s of people are present and then use the right PR campaign, you will no doubt get coverage. It may not be the best coverage but people can find out about your cause and get involved. As a social movement can you ask for more than that?
I don’t think that social movements should be kept from the pubic and I do feel that there could be more coverage but you don’t need a major source of mainstream media to cause social transformation. If a social movement can cause resistance from the controlling institution in any number of ways we discussed in class: evasion, counter-persuasion, coercive persuasion or adjustment those social movements will have their coverage and they have the potential to get news coverage even when keeping a non-violent emphasis. Social movements that have been successful in doing this include Earth First and several others we have discussed in class. In short, I think it takes a very special kind of organization and a comprehensive understanding of the media system in order to see results but hey, no one said social change was going to be easy or timely.