Friday, June 9, 2017

Cultural Disintegration - Part 2.


Part 2 of Cultural Disintegration

The Media in the Middle

In my university days, we used to ask the question:  “Does reality create the media; or, does the media create reality?”  Please note:  We have more television stations available, and yet the content has become increasingly more violent, sensual, and inane.  Has our culture modeled those destructive behaviors first, or has the media imposed those mores on us to shape our worldview?  Even in the 1970’s my mother could not mention the word “Hollywood” in a sentence without using the phrase
“sold their souls to the devil” as well.  The terms had become inextricably linked.  I don’t think she made a mistake.  For all the good that television could have done us: the joy of learning our ABC’s with Big Bird and his friends; the vicarious adventure of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom; and the open doors to other lands with National Geographic, we have mostly left those in the dust.  We’ve traded in education and pleasant viewing for violent crime scenes, complicated, immoral relationships, and judgmental, biased, divisive political ranting.  Somehow most of society feels they cannot survive without this intellectually and spiritually lethal viewing menu.

That being said, people have come to view “having” television on the most basic level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.  I remember thirty years ago standing in a meeting with a stranger next to me making small talk.  I said to him, “Oh, I don’t even OWN a television.  I don’t have time.”  He flatly stated:  “well, I don’t think THAT’s right.”  Don’t misunderstand the tone of voice – he wasn’t saying that I deserved a tv and should have one.  He was saying that I was violating Some Unwritten Cultural Rule by NOT having one!  I found his response confusing. 

Lately, when I am shopping in the Big Box stores and the satellite dish network guys standing at a demo table reach out and ask:  “How’s your cable company treating you?”  I get the biggest charge out of answering:  “I wouldn’t know; I don’t have one.”  Inevitably, the guy is in his late 20’s or early 30’s in a dress shirt and tie and leans forward to ask:  “Well who provides your television service?”  And I respond:  “No one.  Do the math.  I’m saving a minimum of $50/month times 12 months times 30 years.  Plus I’m living MY life, not watching someone else’s.  How much money did I just SAVE?!”  Most likely, it’s the first time for him to do math that high since school, and he chuckles.  I continue on to the dog food aisle, and we are all done with my comedy for the evening.   Yes I do catch a movie or watch dvd’s but nowhere near close to the hours that other people who have paid for service do. 

The Media is about the business of creating an alternate reality.  And that reality is generated in the hearts and minds of the people who are writing the script.  Case in point, I’m watching a tv series on dvd at present and this is how it goes:  Season 1 is flawless, engaging, and has spectacular character development and story lines.  Season 2 they throw in a few curse words (which is offensive to people of faith), and begin the moral decline of the main character with a woman in the hidden stacks of a famous library.  If you want to forget that you just saw that, wait a few episodes and they will reference that rendezvous again.  Then they will take the story line of one of the episodes of Season 3, and film a good 15 minutes of it in a strip bar – and you will see, albeit over the shoulders of the main characters, what the inside of a strip bar looks like… which is a level of voyeurism that decent people prefer to avoid.  It leaves us asking two questions at this point:  What next?  And/or do we give Season 4 a shot for the sake of otherwise “good” content?  The decision is still up in the air.  Where will the line be drawn on what taboo subjects will be shoved in the face of the viewing population?  Yeah, and the one you’re thinking of, they went there too.

No one thinks of the children amidst us anymore –or their innocence.  The Media did not hold back letting us know what the devil in the blue dress did with the man who was holding the office of President of the United States a few years ago.  I was sitting in McD’s having a meal when I heard some details overhead and all I could think of was, “Did I do something to deserve this news in the middle of my meal?”  and, “Wow am I glad I am not a parent eating with little kids who want to know what that term means.”  All of a sudden the entire country was privy to the immorality of the man who OWED IT TO US to be a decent human being with integrity.  He had the highest post in the country and shamed us all.

Currently as I write this a once beloved comedian is having his dalliances strewn about the media’s airwaves.  Just reading the brief description of the case in the newspaper made me nauseous.  I find it hard to believe the woman involved was truly a victim if she put herself in the location with him alone where this could happen.  What did she think they were going to do, drink tea and shoot the breeze?  And, I’m sure that went over well with his wife.  Not.  I am moving towards thinking that the proceedings of trials in the courtroom should now be totally restricted from public knowledge.  If a person is accused of evil and acquitted, it is still difficult to re-build their damaged reputation even if all the details are sealed.  If a person is found guilty and goes to jail, we don’t really need to know how bad they were.  The common city newspaper, both in print and online has basically dropped to a reading level about sixth grade or lower and the content level is on par with the tabloids.  So really, when our city paper goes through the process of evaporating, I say:  “Good riddance.”

Years ago, when the clergy scandals were plastered all over the newspapers, people got the impression that everyone in ministry was a potential perpetrator and that all the accused were automatically guilty.  I have a few friends who are in the clergy.  One of them shared with his congregation that he would be wearing civilian clothes until the emotional climate soothed a bit.  He explained that he had been wearing his clerical blacks and white collar in a grocery store and a woman physically grabbed her kid and pulled the child dramatically to her as if to avoid a kidnapping.  My friend is a gentle soul with integrity and a kind heart.  This action hurt him, but he understood.  As he spoke to us that morning in church he held his left hand up high to the left with a fist grasping an imaginary knot and said, “I have a solution:  a rope and a tree.”  Wow, someone who shared the outrage of the common person.  This is what people need to know:  it is not clergy vs. laity, a Them vs. Us.  It is good against evil.  We have to be clear what that looks like. 

In another case, a man I know was accused and arrested.  I read the 
article and my eyebrows lifted:  three kids in the same family, really?  First and foremost I can say from my conversations with him that he was a man of very high integrity and deep spirituality.  There was hardly even a shadow when he walked in sunshine, he was that solid of a person.  Secondly, he was handsome.  And it did not take much imagination to think that if an unscrupulous single mother made a pass at him he would have deflected it…. And she could attempt to “get even” by accusing him.  And I say this because if you study predators, they are not stupid enough to prey upon children in the same family because it ups the likelihood that one of them will “spill the beans” and the truth will be out.  So that being said, I wrote to the author of the news piece and told her:  “You are guilty of Trial-by-Media.  Every man is due his day in Court.  That is the American way.  You have maligned an innocent man.”  Her response to me was brief:  “Do you know something I need to know?”  See, she was not about truth, she was about more dirt to sell newspapers…. Newspapers which are barely worthy to have my pet birds crap on them.  







At which point will the Media be held accountable for detraction, slander and sensationalism?  When will the people stand up and say:  ENOUGH.  We want truth, not spin.  We don’t want details and sensationalism so you can sell your product.  We are done with you destroying the innocence of our children in the name of avoiding be censored.  We want you to serve the community, not undermine its values and malign its leaders.  We used to have a body or Commission that over-saw such things.  They haven’t ruled on anything in so long, I have forgotten what we called them.  Now it is up to the common people to organize leagues of decency to make sure that the Media doesn’t continue to make Itself Grand Justice and Jury.  They have stepped way out of their bounds.  We need to tie them back to the dog house where they belong.


#############

No comments:

Post a Comment