Hurrah for Charlie Brooker and Nick Davies (author of Flat Earth News, which I'm currently reading - albeit slowly due to dissertational woes), both of the Guardian, have successfully, I think, emphasised the danger of the media.
Everyone reads newspapers - or at the very least, the news online, or on TV, or on the radio. Everyone knows, to a certain extent, what's going on in the world because information technology is just that fast.
At the moment I doubt that its entirely accurate.
Beginning with the article above. 'Meow' (I've never heard anybody call it 'meow-meow', but the press seem to have lapped that up. Maybe I hang out with the wrong kind of people) is splashed across the headlines, and I am sure most people are wanting to get it banned, immediately, especially because a couple teenagers died the other week. Most newspapers failed to report that these teenagers had been taking a multitude of other narcotics in addition to meow on that night out, including mass quantities of alcohol and even methadrone, a heroin subsitute. Perhaps this contributed to the very saddening situation of their deaths.
And this is because the media gives what the public wants to hear - it would be nice if somebody actually took the time to see whether meow by itself was harmful, rather than screaming for its immediate banning, because unfortunately kids these days want to get wasted and will do a ridiculous amount of things for a hit.
But rather than engaging in proper, unbiased research, the press seems to grasp on to a popular notion which will sell, that meow will kill your child.
Maybe it will kill your child. The problem is, nobody knows because it is such a new phenomenon. If it is banned this research may never be carried out. Enter Professor Nutt and his assertion that MDMA is actually less harmful than alcohol. Here's an interesting article from the Scientific Activist, to go with the graph below http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2006/08/study_finds_alcohol_and_tobacc.php
Davies addresses this issue in Flat Earth News - how one small assertion, or badly researched stories, can be taylored into mass panic propagated by the media. Remember Swine Flu? I admit I'm guilty of this blind belief - over last summer whilst in London I'd give anybody who sneezed near me the evils. Just from swine flu hitting the headlines, I felt constantly dirty and infected whilst living in England - going back to Belgium, where my parents are, seemed like a breath of fresh air.
What about the Millenium Bug?Etc.......
And yet the problem is this. The press has to work faster and faster, with less and less people getting stories - Newspapers amongst other mediums of information are crumbling industries. If only journalists had the time to go out and research a proper story, rather than taking information from press releases and other newspapers. The information becomes recycled, reiterated, and trickles down to the public that way.
And from reading papers, etc, one can see that information (especially information which will cause mass hysteria) gets snapped up, recycled, reshaped and fed to the public again. It's nobody's fault, really, as there is not enough time or money to research proper stories. It's not a massive conspiracy theory either - it's just lack of time and resources combined with the need to sell.
I fear that the golden age of journalism, as a bearer of truth and reliability, has passed.
Images:
enemiesofreason.co.uk
scienceblogs.com
I thought meow-meow was mephedrone? Nicely written :)
ReplyDeleteyou're completely correct, my mistake! its been corrected now
ReplyDelete