Does the Philadelphia media report on violence in a way that addresses underlying causes and stimulates change?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Virginia Tech/In Memoriam
"We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness ... We will prevail ..." -- Nikki Giovanni, University Distinguished Professor, poet, activist
6 comments:
Considering the inundation of violent headlines, courtroom reality shows, cop shows and legal dramas on television, it is astonishing that the average college student can almost certainly not adequately describe the basic structure of the justice system.
If we cannot effectively convey the most basis, systemic aspects of the justice system, how can we possibly approach the underlying causes of the acts it punishes?
There is an obsession with law and legal culture in this country. This mass hysteria is no doubt a product of a profiteering few exploiting a mass of vapid micromanagers who think the law has the answer to any and all problems. Is there a problem in your frontyard? Throw a law at it! Is there already a law against the problem at hand (most violence would fall into this category)? Institute a stiffer penalty! To hell with edifying citizens, stimulating discourse and encouraging cooperation, there's not a dime in it for anyone!
We have seen little growth from this legal-eagle mindset save for the explosion in our prison population. As Tacitus said so many centuries ago, "Where before we have suffered from crimes, now we suffer from laws."
Philadelphia is currently suffering from both crimes and a set of perplexed lawmakers and law enforcers. Consider that in the wake of escalating murder rates, the Inquirer ran a story attributing statements to police officials that t-shirts were exacerbating the problem, including the "Angry Snowman" and "Stop Snitchin'" shirts that became popular around the city.
This sort of straw-grasping extends to City Hall where the City Council applauded its blantantly unlawful statute outlawing the sale of individual cigars, wraps and other tobacco products used as "drug paraphenalia" (the statute was predictably repealed). This was the Council's most recent answer to drug trafficking in Philadelphia, an industry that creates both violence and theft.
When violence occurs in privileged communities, reporters and cameras are all over every detail. It seems to be a pleasant novelty ... and there is a nice sushi place around the corner from where the shooting happened.
How can a power structure--including the vaunted "fourth estate"--staffed by people who are neither forced nor willing to understand the realities of what James Baldwin termed "Another Country" approach these problems in a substantive manner? The culture, structure and values of America's impoverished differ vastly from those of its privileged. If the differences extend as far as those between the schools, neighborhoods, health care facilities and other basic aspects of daily life do, we have a lot of listening and learning to do, not a few t-shirts to read.
Yesterday, there was yet another workplace shooting that was covered without interruption (expect for commercials, of course) for a couple of hours in the late morning on CNN. Perhaps because the shooting took place in Michigan, or maybe because only one person was actually killed, the media lost interest by the time the evening news aired.
Why, when terrorism is at the front of so many people’s minds, wouldn’t the media treat this kind of attack as just that? Why is it that so many acts of domestic terrorism (shootings at workplaces and schools) aren’t treated as such? Why don’t we give these incidents a broad social definition like ‘domestic terrorism?’ Why do most news outlets convey these attacks as isolated acts of violence by disgruntled employees or mentally deranged sickos, instead of as a national trend that is beginning to define our nation?
It may go beyond the traditional scope of an evening newscast to give a thorough backstory or perspective on every story, but if the powers that be could find a way to impart the frivolity of these actions--be they workplace shootings or high school shenanigans—the way they change workplaces, and create more and more intrusive security measures for the simplest of tasks, perhaps then consumers would have a better idea of how these stories will effect them. News ought to carry the future implications of every story as prominently as they did the original in order to demonstrate a clear cause and effect relationship between crimes committed and their aftermath left for the rest of us.
Andrew and Carrie, you bring up some good points about this, and I have a few things to add. Personally, I tend to “shut out” news about violence in the city. I don’t ignore it—I’m well aware of Philadelphia’s record-setting homicide rate this year—but it’s not the kind of information I seek out. I don’t watch the nightly news because I find it relentlessly negative and sensational. I do like to be informed about crime (especially violent crime) in my city, but in a way that keeps me cautious and street-smart—not in a way that inspires fear.
I think the Philadelphia media messages the violence in a way that inspires fear and hopelessness. I recall hearing about the man who was killed by a stray bullet as he was getting dressed from work in the morning, but I don’t remember hearing about city initiatives to stop violence—at least not as much as I hear about the violence itself. Aside from the requisite cry for “more police on the streets,” I don’t hear talk of solutions. For example, what other high crime cities have successfully lowered their homicide rates, and how did they do it? Why don’t I hear more about organizations that are fighting hard to keep our streets safe, like CeaseFire PA and House of Umoja?
A recent article on the website for a local news station, ABC 6, focused on this current wave of crime. It auspiciously poses in the first paragraph an immensely important question: “What can be done to stem the tide?” Unfortunately, only one paragraph mentions any sort of solution. The President of Cease-Fire Pennsylvania, Phil Goldsmith, offers that we need to “minimize the easy availability of hand guns.”
The rest of the article tallies the body count (76 homicides so far this year!), compares it with other major cities (we’re ahead of New York City [66], Los Angeles [59], and Chicago [53]!), and paints a gloomy picture of the country in general (many cities have experienced a continuing rise in homicides since 2004). Without a nugget of optimism, the message holds no catalyst for change, or even the hope of it.
What exactly is the role of a journalist? Traditionally, a journalist is responsible for informing the public in reliable and timely way. Journalists are supposed to report the facts and spark debate with their professional opinions.
However, the news is being driven by profit and is creating some very negative effects. Media conglomerates and the news agencies that serve them are using news to entertain people more than ever. This sensationalized news draws in viewers and leads to increased revenue.
Unfortunately, most of the sensationalized news is in the form of crime stories. The local news stations report on the local Philadelphia shootings and slayings but rarely ever provide a solution.
What ever happened to civic journalism? This is when a journalists reports on a problem, such as violence, and promotes a solution or civic action. The local media needs to put as much effort into covering violence in America as they do with reporting on the Iraq War.
However, there is some hope. Just last week, I was listening to KYW news radio and a story surfaced about a city effort in placing video cameras in high crime areas of Philadelphia. The news media needs to develop more stories of this nature. They need to 'hit the mark' and provide solutions, not simply 'count crimes'.
I tend not to watch news on television. I do not think it shows news very well, and is full of violence and worthless information.
I do not think that Philadelphia's media promotes change or gets to underlying issues. It's overly dramatic and just makes people feel unsafe. It does not get to any underlying issues or promote anything helpful. It just promotes fear and worry.
Post a Comment