I stopped blogging because I didn’t have anything to say, and didn’t feel like being a useless, pedantic blogger, or worse, a pedestrian one. But now I’m back, and plan to keep the focus on the media.
Two thoughts: First, I agree with NBC’s decision to show the Virginia Tech killer’s video, but disagree with how they went about it. I wouldn’t have shown the kid posing like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, or whatever, because we don’t need to glorify him, or be tacky just for ratings. (And NBC destroyed their rivals in the ratings that night, because we Americans love being tacky while criticizing others for being tacky.) But I would have run 20 or so seconds of him talking to the camera.
The news is still news, whether or not it’s comfortable. A major part of the story is, why — as in, why did he kill 32 people. Answer: He was crazy. It may seem obvious, but most criminal experts, I think, would tell you that most killers are actually perfectly sane, albeit exceptionally callous, people. So it is news that he was crazy. But could NBC — and other media outlets, including newspapers — have told us that without splashing the kid all across their screens and front pages? Yes. In a situation like this — using 9-11, for example, as a guide — I think you show only as much sensational material as you need to, in order to get the point across, and nothing more. Anything else is just exploitation for ratings, and it’s the absolute wrong call.
Second … in the wake of the whole Imus deal, there’s been a lot of discussion in the media about whether we’re debasing our culture and values with certain content in the entertainment industry. Maybe part of the problem is, we disagree on, or are too lazy or greedy to consider, what those values should be. Let’s be clear: As a writer and journalist, I fully support the First Amendment. But with rights come responsibilities. It is legitimate to say things that are edgy or controversial, if those words serve a reasonable public interest. It is also legitimate to question whether such an interest exists. For example, does calling the Rutgers basketball players “nappy-headed hos” further a reasonable public interest, or is it simply an exploitative, irresponsible use of free speech? Do we really want, or even need, to place it in the same protected public status as say, an anti-war protest?
Continue reading ‘Back With Thoughts: NBC News and Music’
Posted in Journal Entry