June 21, 2007
What does the
Eiffel Tower have to do with the media?
Vol. 2 Issue10
It is
amazing how much the press feeds into our
emotional needs. It is as though we are news
junkies, addicted to story after story about
what the media considers newsworthy items.
They believe they are newsworthy, but most
of us believe they have nothing better to do
than to fill broadcast time with events that
will not change our lives or make us feel
any better.
The one thing that the broadcast media hates
more than anything else is what is know in
the industry as "Dead Air," sudden silence
or that dreaded "Pregnant Pause."
Reporters, networks and their staffs are
like sharks during a feeding frenzy. They
find their prey and pull it apart piece by
piece until every minute morsel is examined
and tasted. Then they regurgitate it so that
when it reappears it bears no resemblance to
what it was when they first started feeding
on it. They call it poetic license. I call
it spin. Every network tries to twist a
story to find another angle to report on. Do
they do it to give us the facts or to try to
prove to us that they are better than their
competitors? I really believe it is the
latter. I have watched two independent news
channels reporting on the same incident. The
stories were so diverse that I though I was
listening to two different stories.
I am reminded about the almost one-year that
we became tourists in Aruba via the one-eyed
monster that occupies our homes. The name
Natalie Holloway was embedded in our minds
like a drug that we had to have. The
addiction was overwhelming. How long will it
be before we start to ask Natalie who?
Unfortunately, the press constantly reminds
us who she is and that she is still a
mystery. The latest escapade is the
assumption that her mother Beth is
romantically entwined with Jon Benet
Ramsey's father. Strange as that may seem we
feed into all this malarkey like it is a
soap opera. Do you really care?
Here is a partial role call of media
frenzies over the years. O.J. Simpson, Jon
Benét Ramsey, Princess Diana, Mark Foley,
and Laci Peterson just to name a few.
John Mark Karr was added to the list, as the
morning talk shows and 24/7 cable networks
watched as their ratings soared to the
images of Karr being paraded in front of
cameras in Thailand. Those scenes were
played repeatedly until we either became
fixated on the possible fact that he may
have killed Jon Benet Ramsey or did we
switch the channel to a mindless reality
show for lack of anything better on TV. Try
reading a book for a change.
With each media frenzy, the same talking
heads resurface for another ten-minutes of
fame; only to be introduced as experts or
news analysts instead of being rightly
recognized as opinionators -- So called
experts who would probably never be allowed
to testify in a court of law because they
are full of opinions not facts.
However, the media frenzy goes on. The
networks and print media do not care. They
will substitute themselves for the system of
justice. In addition, 24/7 they will deliver
a guilty or not guilty verdict to their
viewers. That verdict will be based on
speculation, rumor, or hearsay or their own
contrived pomperoneous statements. Even
though in most cases their so-called facts
will be shown to be wrong.
The media frenzies drive ratings and ratings
equate to profits. Most people find the
truth boring, so they would rather listen to
the media rhetoric. Take heed: When the next
frenzy dominates your TV and Radio,
skepticism should be the operative word.
Perhaps to the point of disbelief.
Personally, I couldn't give a damn. More
important things in my life affect me. For
some strange reason, which I have not
figured out yet during an election year,
politicians seem to be the target of most
media frenzies, even though more important
events may be happening around us.
On dozens of occasions in the past decades,
the news media has gone after a wounded
politician like a shark during dinner. The
wounds may be self- inflicted, and the
politician may richly deserve his or her
fate, but it is the media who takes the
center ring. And, believe me, they do not
report the news; they recreate it distorting
both the characteristics and blueprint of
the political scene.
Let us look back at some of the political
media blitzes and frenzies that have taken
place over the past years. In "Feeding
Frenzy: How Attack Journalism Has
Transformed American Politics" (Free Press,
1991 and 1993), political analyst and
University of Virginia government professor
Larry J. Sabato provided a case- by-case
account of some notable frenzies in the last
half-century.
In 1952, there was Vice Presidential
candidate Richard Nixon's secret fund where
he was accused of hiding $18,000 dollars in
campaign contributions. This secret fund
became the central issue of his campaign.
That is more money then some people have put
down as a deposit on their homes.
During July of 1969, two days before Neil
Armstrong took his famous walk on the moon,
Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy drove his car
off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island,
drowning his female companion Mary Jo
Kopechne. He left the scene of the accident
and did not report it for hours. The press
had a field day. Kennedy claimed he swam all
night against the tide with two herniated
discs to get help. Are you skeptical?
In 1970, Presidential candidate, Senator
George McGovern's running mate, Thomas
Eagleton was caught up in a media frenzy
when it was reported that he had been
hospitalized three times for depression and
had subsequently received electric-shock
treatment. The most irresponsible reporting
was by columnist Jack Anderson, who falsely
reported a half- dozen arrests for DWI and
other traffic offenses. Eagleton withdrew
from the ticket. Some of us were skeptical.
Here is one you are going to love. Some of
us may be too young to remember, but this is
true. While President, Jimmy Carter took
some time off to go fishing in Plains,
Georgia. He reported that while fishing, his
rowboat was attacked by a swimming rabbit
(you cannot make this stuff up folks) and he
had successfully fought it off with an oar.
This bizarre story caught the eye of the
press. It is believed that it helped become
a symbolic prelude to his loss against
Ronald Regan in the 1980 election.
In the 1980's, Massachusetts (D) Contressman,
Barney Frank was accused of an extensive
relationship with a male prostitute who ran
a bi-sexual prostitution service from
Frank's Washington apartment. The story
published by the conservative Washington
Times spelled out every juicy morsel on
their front page. Yet, even though Frank
claimed he had no knowledge of the illegal
activities, the house reprimanded him.
Despite the reprimand, he was reelected to
the house. However, all Mark Foley did was
send out an e-mail.
For the most part, it seems that today's
politicians are dodging bullets. However, no
one has dodged more bullets then the
Clinton"s have. Names like Gennifer Flowers,
Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, White Water
and Travel-Gate are still bantered about. Do
the words, "I never had sex with that woman"
ring a bell? Bill Clinton admitted it later
on, but still managed to survive the media
frenzy.
Where or when will the next media frenzy
occur? No one really knows. With the long
list of candidates on both sides of the
political aisle joining the campaign, it may
only take a few weeks or a few months - or
maybe just the next slow news cycle -
something will evolve. It will happen again
just as it has happened in the past. And, If
it doesn't, who cares. Will it really change
our lives? Or, will we ignore it and read a
good book?
So to answer my opening question, What does
the Eiffel Tower have to do with the media?
Nothing, I used it to get your attention.
However, in the words of Humphrey Bogart to
Ingrid Bergman in the movie Casablanca,
"We'll always have Paris."
And, that is my opinion.
Michael Solomon
If you want to
help restore sanity to America, Click on Get
Outraged.
|
