Life on Edge

Posted: September 19, 2013 in Consumerism, Media, Nomenclature
Tags:

/rant on

There is no love lost between me and the mainstream media. Although journalism has had its high and low points over the decades, my finding is that, commencing sometime in the mid-80s perhaps (the Challenger disaster was a notable low point), it began a steep decline and has now reached a particularly deep nadir. The competing dynamics of quality content creation, democratization of production, and instantaneity of reporting (often premature reporting before facts are known reliably, such as with recent shooting at the Washington, D.C. navy yard where the body and shooter counts changed hourly) no doubt have conspired to make it difficult to provide quality. (Note I didn’t say maintain quality.) Further, the heavy intermix of politics and commerce creates an atmosphere where the media conspire with politicians and advertisers to manage perception. The worst examples may be reporting the controversy where none exists, misreporting scientific findings out of sheer incompetence, and a noticeable conspiracy of silence regarding threats to our very existence. Indeed, it’s impossible anymore to say who is carrying water for whom, and the hope or expectation of honest reporting slips a little further with each passing season.

Accordingly, I do my best to avoid polluting my thinking with the twin devils of debased content and manufactured desire. That doesn’t mean I live in a vacuum. In fact, I gather quite a bit of information in the course of a week, month, and year; but I select my sources with a healthy disdain for being made into either an advertising mark or a dupe of some political hack. Yet even with that, I’m subjected to a plethora of headlines and commercial impressions accompanying news items and posted on gateways to my e-mail accounts, especially on Comcast and Yahoo! (Why Google, the mother ship of clickable ads, doesn’t get in on the act is beyond me.) Many of them take the form of what I’ve heard called “listicles” (lists + articles = listicles).

The standard not-really-news approach is to suggest a number of ways one might adopt some how-to-succeed blueprint according to models, patterns, and behavioral norms — essentially living (or painting) by the numbers. I used to read a few of these at Cracked.com, which were at least funny and informative, but I’m growing particularly annoyed that whittling down the diversity of American (or First World) life to a series of banal expectations (family, career building, overconsumption) passes through the editorial decision-making process without difficulty. Listicles succeed primarily at an adolescent game of “made you look” where no payoff exists except for those commandeering via click-throughs the eyes of a witless public.

It also has the (intentional?) effect of making those whose lives do not conform appear to be failures, as though everyone automatically seeks fame and fortune and cachet. A few iconoclasts can still achieve notoriety, riches, and some ineffable cool factor while defying the forces of conformity, but most of us are pounded remorselessly into the form and shape recommended in listicles and, curiously, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which was updated earlier this year to its fifth edition with a greatly expanded list of pathologies and disorders. Whereas most criticisms of this expansion go to diagnostic creep, I can suggest two other criticisms worthy of consideration: increasingly crazy-making conditions of postmodern life (life continuously on edge) and casting a wider net to ensnare those on the fringes (who are all by default potential nutjobs who will shoot up a public place).

If there are underlying causes and treatments for people unable to feign normalcy (because after all, when insanity is normalized, who wants to join that party?), they have far less priority than distracting people with crude entertainment, buying them off with electronic gadgetry, medicating them into submission, and if those fail, corralling serious malcontents before they cause too much consternation among those who prefer to pretend that everything is rosy and business as usual can continue unaffected into the foreseeable future.

/rant off

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Brian says:

    Commenting on the debasing of journalistic standards:

    I find it interesting that although most media has been debased into thoughtless streams of micro-stories dictated by the 24/7 clock there is still a trickle-down effect from the old line journals. As a long time reader of the New Yorker I continue to be amazed by a timeline that repeats over and over.

    Tuesday: Long 8 page article comes out in New Yorker on some investigation into Drug “X” or Pentagon malfeasance.

    Friday: New York Times or Wall Street Journal run “investigative” piece on the same.

    Following Monday: NPR reports on a special investigation the same.

    Two months later: CBS reports the same as an “Exclusive”.

    Repeat cycle.

    Keep up the rants,
    Brian

    • Brutus says:

      Thanks for your comment. The assessment you provide above requires a greater familiarity with news cycles than I have, but I believe in the pattern you observe. I’m not sure that news outlets break actual news anymore (as opposed to press releases) or practice worthwhile long-form journalism. The articles/periodicals I still read are more analysis and entertainment than news.

      I’ll keep ranting, I suppose, but I’m sure that it’s equivalent to howling at the moon for all the good it does.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s