“I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.”(1)
This was the unfortunate conclusion to Joe Stack’s alleged suicide note, before he carried out his attack on the IRS building in Austin, Texas last Thursday.(2,3) Without condoning or condemning, I understand his desperation. There’s hardly a person on the planet who can’t relate to the hopelessness of failed ambitions; some more than others. The appropriate response to these situations is subjective, but it’s typically a good idea to err on the side of sunny optimism, even if it’s a touch naïve.
More concerning than the crime itself, is the sensationalism the story is receiving in world news in all but the most important areas. The facts have so far been well documented: Stack reportedly flew a small, single-engine plane into the seven story building where the IRS office was located, in Austin, Texas, killing himself and another man, Vernon Hunter. Still to be reported is any investigation into the amount of truth in Stack’s allegations about his trouble with the Internal Revenue Service.
According to the Fox News website, no less than 100 people have been killed in the past decade due to mass shootings, shootouts and rampages.(4) This is an extremely conservative estimate. Is it possible that these are all solely the result of psychologically unbalanced individuals who have a history of anti-social behaviour accompanied by various anxiety disorders and a discourse towards depression? No doubt, the perpetrators in these instances suffer from a great many issues, but that doesn’t mean their grievances should be discarded as sheer lunacy.
Instead of shrugging them off as unrelated violent crimes, why don’t more news agencies explore the chronology that led to these events? Moreover, why aren’t we being spurred towards the perpetrators desired outcome: general scrutiny or even mere concern for their plight? Granted, the murder of innocents is a good way to quickly polarize opinions against you, but again, this is a reflection of their desperation and still merits consideration. At the very least we should be asking how they arrived at that point.
The sum total of the lack of journalistic investigation into what led to these events seems to be extreme indifference among the civilian population. One possible explanation for the absence of freethinking, tenacious journalists is the continuation of “business-as-usual.” Although there are probably a number of other explanations which amount to the gag effect on professional insight, it’s apparent that the majority of world news leaders have no interest in upsetting the status quo.
Traditionally, the purpose of journalism is to act as a conduit in service to the population. As such, there should be no inherent bias - although this is unavoidable - or particular agenda on the part of the journalist. Personal political beliefs shouldn’t influence the balance of truth and facts. Unfortunately what we’ve arrived at is the era of corporate-sponsored news media. If you think this is conspiracy-theorist, consider the extensive list of holdings the Time Warner Company has in broadcasting and print - not least of which is CNN, HBO, Warner Bros., TBS, TNT, and Time magazine(5). Similarly, other corporate conglomerates (such as General Electric(6), CBS(7) and Viacom, Inc.(8)) have a vested interest in the output of news from their subsidiaries.
From time to time, substantial work is produced by these agencies, but it’s more often than not incidentally, as in the case of the National Enquirer’s nomination for a Pulitzer prize last week(9). The American tabloid magazine was nominated for its work on exposing former presidential candidate John Edwards’ lies and infidelities; more surprisingly, they were right. Nevertheless, what we see dominating the headlines in North America anymore is no longer journalistic bravery challenging established thought, but sensational stories about violence, scandal and gossip, always towing the corporate line - which usually happens to be the bottom line.
But it is what it is because it sells. We’ve allowed ourselves to be enamoured and entertained by the news, instead of provoked and intrigued by it. We’ve become lethargic in our reactions to scandals in government, or violent crimes, specifically those motivated by legitimate social issues. At what point do normal people dissent anymore?
Whether it was the desired outcome or not, we’ve become numb to spectacular stories of scandal, deceit and mass murder. That’s why I’m proposing that we reform the daily news. Reports on all the juiciest stories should be concise and void of speculation. We should spend more time on creative stories, constructive stories, such as community development or public debate forums. And if the days news amounts to no more than 10 minutes of reporting, we return to the regular schedule - which is another topic altogether. Maybe this can revive the spirit of public dissent when something important does happen. Or maybe these are merely the ramblings of a psychologically disturbed individual, destined to be discredited and doomed to obscurity.
--
References:
1. http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/blotter/entries/2010/02/18/internet_note_posted_by_man_li.html?cxntcid=breaking_news
2. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/22/texas.plane.crash/index.html
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/feb/18/austin-irs-joseph-stack
4. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512480,00.html
5. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner
6. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=ge
7. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=cbs
8. http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=viacom
9. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/feb/23/national-enquirer-oliver-burkeman
0 comments:
Post a Comment