6/11/2002 - Entry #39
So, it looks like a big victory for George Bush's Republican army over in the mid-term elections. There's a very, very scant few president's who actually gain House seats in the mid-term elections, so arguably, Bush is one of the most successful president's ever. How in the hell did that happen? Oh, and surprise surprise, Jeb Bush managed to get a second term in Florida. Golly!
I've been noticing lately that Politics has been taking a serious backseat to the more sensational sniper attack stories, and I can't help but wonder if that's had a slight influence on the vote. It's undeniable that the sniper coverage has deflected public attention from the mid-term elections, resulting in one of the most low-key campaign drives of all time. I dunno if it's too drastic a leap of logic though, to suggest that the vote may have turned out differently had the media paid attention.
It really is ridiculous how much coverage is being devoted to the sniper, though. It truly sickens me. Don't get me wrong, it's an important story which affects a lot of people, and it deserves to be reported, but 24 hour blanket coverage from the American cable news networks is absurd. The biggest news networks, such as CNN and MSNBC have clearly realised that it makes much more financial sense to focus on one story and to sensationalise it beyond belief, rather than to offer as many news items as possible. It's not as if there aren't other important stories that deserve mention, such as the aforesaid mid-term elections, and the still unresolved issue of war with Iraq, but these stories are swept under the carpet to make room for glorified dramatics. In terms of actual news, there's very little happening in the sniper story, and the information is very limited. There's only so much you can say, so many police officers you can interview, and so many incidents to report, before you have to turn to outright speculation to fill up the many many hours in the day.
Now, I try my best to watch the American news every now and then, more out of macabre rubber-necking than a desire for information, and over the last three weeks I've finally come to the conclusion that America has more crime-profilers than actual criminals. If I see one more group of desk-ridden criminal psychologists speculating endlessly on what the sniper's motives might possibly be, I'll pick up a rifle myself. Which, slyly enough, brings me to my next gripe with the coverage. I'm all but convinced this blanket media frenzy is feeding into the sniper's actions. There've been an alarming number of parallels between comments made on TV and the killer's actions. I watched a typically blurry RealMedia feed of a CNN news item wherein several crime profilers speculated on whether the sniper perhaps had a God complex, and considered himself to be omnipotent. The very next day, the police find a card with the words "I Am God." Later in the week, one profiler postulated that the sniper would most likely strike in Ashland, Virginia next, as it was a perfect opportunity. The very next day, a man was shot in Ponderossa in West Virginia. Clearly they could just be coincidences, but at what point do you stop and ask yourself if the sniper is taking cues from the media? I saw one segment where Dorothy Lewis, a professor in psychology from an American university, was absolutely outraged at her fellow guests when they decided to actively taunt the sniper. They made several comments about the lack of finesse in the killings, and that a, and I quote, "real sniper" would have acted differently. She was gobsmacked by their posturing and complete lack of common sense, and I don't blame her. You don't challenge a sniper, and say "you're not a good enough killer." That kind of display has further entrenched me in my hatred of the media. Sure, they're boosting their ratings by twentyfive, maybe thirty percent, and that's just great! But they have a huge effect on real life, and on people's lives, and they seem to accept no responsibility for that whatsoever. If serial killers murder for thrills, then the possibility has to be considered that their thrill may well be increased by the notoriety that comes with 24 hour non-stop coverage of their deeds. I mean, you can cover the slew of shark attacks as much as you want. You're not gonna make the sharks any hungrier. But this kind of round the clock blanket coverage may well spur the killer on, or worse still cause copycat murders. These people are simply rewarding murder with fame. Even the New York Times wasn't free from blame, as it published a graphic pinpointing the location of every traffic surveillance camera in the vicinity of each shooting. That information assists who, exactly, besides the killer?
There've been countless overblown crime stories in the past, but the sniping tragedies were the perfect fodder for the cable outlets, and they stick out like a sore thumb. The marketing execs considered the benefits and decided that this was prime low-cost coverage with high returns. Ghoulish titillation playing to the strengths of such dubious journalistic crusaders as Connie Chung and Jerry Nachman, two of the human beings I despise the most.
I just wish that media networks would learn to stop reporting when they don't have news. Instead they race each other to the bottom, fixating on the biggest ratings-grabber whilst ignoring other equally important issues, directing the public's attention where they see fit.
The sniper coverage has successfully hijacked the limelight at a time when countless Americans were deciding which way to vote. Perhaps it didn't have any effect, but perhaps it did.
Unfortunately, cable news has a worrying knock-on effect, as what the major networks decide to cover inevitably becomes the biggest story. Periodic news programmes look to the big networks to decide what to report, and when one single story is playing 24 hours a day, the choice is all but out of your hands. The effect is wall-to-wall repetition, the news hyping itself and distorting the 'window to the world' provided to viewers and reporters alike.
At times during the 11th of September attacks, many observers implicitly disparaged the summer's news items as paling in comparison to what was unfolding before their eyes. In retrospect, the obsessions with Gary Condit and shark attacks seem impossibly trivial. In years ahead, I can only hope that people will look back at the pre-election days of 2002 with misty-eyed regret. Not because the shootings weren't important, but because the revved-up machinery of the news networks had the effect of propelling news editors as well as public consumers to lose perspective.
Whoever controls the Senate and the House of Representatives is a frightfully important issue, as the decisions made by those legislative bodies will profoundly affect American's lives (I know I shouldn't care, but I do). I can't help but feel that media priorities are contributing to leave democratic possibilities in the dust.
If journalism is the first draft of history, then ours desperately needs revision.
Please sign the Guestbook. For the love of God, sign it now.