MEDIA TOYS

I'm tired of being the media's little predictable consumer. When you think about it, you'll understand what I mean. The news, at every level, is boxed and packaged for our consumption, and the media has been a little too relaxed lately, knowing that it really doesn't matter the quality of the content and programming, we'll watch it no matter what. They've been lazy with their job, and I'm tired of them thinking that I'm going to fall for the same old stuff over and over again.

My first example is political in nature: THE LATEST SCANDAL!!! When was the last time there wasn't a scandal in Washington? I won't even talk about the '90's. . .let's start with this millenium. In early 2001 it was Gary Condit and Chandra Levy. Then 9/11 hit and in 2002 it was, "Why couldn't Bush connect the dots?" Then we sat through the 9/11 Commission with it's surreal pomp and circumstance. Following that we had Katrina and FEMA. Sprinkled in, we've had "domestic spying," "civil rights abuses" (both at home and abroad), perfectly legal U.S. attorney firings that the Left has "scandalized." And I'm probably forgeting a scandal or two or seven. The television & print media producers from on high have to manufacture scandals so that we can't help but run to the television and wait not-so-patiently for the latest details.

It's even come to the point that some Washington scandals aren't as interesting to the consumer. Remember the D.C. Madame that was going to name names? That story hasn't gone very far. (It's either hit a dead end, or wasn't that big of a story to begin with.) When the D.C. scandal-of-the-moment doesn't register high enough on the scandal-o-meter, the media has to turn to "shocking", don't-miss-the-latest-development stories from somewhere else: missing children, grusome murders, etc. Not that these stories aren't part of the news, but the reporters going on location (read: Greta Van Susteren), it get's a bit excessive. (I actually caught a few minutes of Greta interviewing a Canton, OH, newpaper reporter that was friends with the reporter who was covering a murder case in a courtroom. The guy being interviewed wasn't a witness to anything!)

To prove my point about jumping from one scandal to another, have you noticed that we rarely get any follow-up stories? These just don't sell as well as the latest crisis. (Are there any new developments on Chandra Levy's whereabouts?)

From XEKE.com: "Hey, Media, not everything is a crisis or a scandal. Just tell me the news of the day. . . Nothing big deal happened today? Then don't stretch the truth or make something up."

Remember the murders and rapes in the Superdome that were reported, but never actually happened?

Example no. 2 comes from the sports world: At the start of every football season there is a "quarterback controversy." "Who should start?" the local and national media breathlessly fret. Sometimes it's local, like the Tim Couch/Kelly Holcombe question (the rest of the country didn't care about that one). Other times it's national, such as this year's Notre Dame "quaterback controversy." (I literally just turned off the television after ESPN asked if Charlie Weis made a mistake by not naming a starting quarterback sooner in fall practice. Um. . . I don't care. And is this really all you have to talk and worry about?)

And when ESPN is finished with their Notre Dame conversation, they move on to the other pressing question: When is Brady Quinn going to start for the Cleveland Browns? (This is an example of a stupid local story becoming a stupid national story.) We all know that at some point in time Brady Quinn will start a game for the Cleveland Browns. Why don't we watch and enjoy the games as they come, and then worry about Brady Quinn when he actually plays? I know, I know, this is too much to ask.

My third example comes from the combination of the sports world and our current social climate: I didn't need to be lectured about the "importance" and the "solemnity" with which the Virginia Tech football players took the field. There's going to be a year's worth of "firsts" following the Virginia Tech Massacre, and to watch ESPN's reporters feign perplexity and emotion on the VT campus, trying to draw me into their thoughtful, socially conscious world prior to the game was about all I could stand. It was much like the "important" first home game for the New Orleans Saints last year following the Katrina disaster. (I could actually have used this as a manufactured crisis example. Remember the murders and rapes in the Superdome that were reported, but never actually happened? Good job, Media.)

Football is important, and certainly thousands can rally around it, providing grieving college students, faculty and alumni an opportunity to hug and cry together. But until real change takes place in the community (VaTech or otherwise), these events, often promoted like a Don King boxing match, are nothing more than a feel-good session. Rather than the residents of Blacksburg and New Orleans feeling all warm and fuzzy during a sporting event, how about they make the tough decisions and life-style changes that need to take place (a) to ensure the tragedy doesn't happen again, and (b) if it does, to ensure that the citizens caught in the tragedy aren't victimized as they were the first time around. But the media won't talk about meaningful change like this, and now I'm the insensitive jerk for even suggesting it. It's okay, I can live with that.

Ultimately, when it comes to media consumption of any kind, I'm going to give the manufacturers about 2 minutes. If their coverage and production doesn't pass the smell test, they'll lose me as a consumer. May I suggest the same for you.

9/12/2007