Mass Media enables Mass Suffering - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

mojodragon · 01-27-2005, 04:05 PM

This is something I’ve been forming in my mind for some time. I’m going to try to get the idea across, without confusing everyone. Please note that I’m not attacking Free Speech in any way. Also, the names and events (except one, which should be obvious) are made up.

Jane gets raped by Tom. She suffers physical, mental, and spiritual damage from the attack. She reports the attack to the police, who puts out an arrest warrant for Tom. His description and crime are radioed to patrol cars, who start looking for Tom.

Meanwhile, the local news station, which is monitoring the police radio net, gets wind of the story. They know that this suspect is wanted for rape. The police decide to use the media as a tool to catch Tom. So, that night at 11, the story is plastered all over the tv, and in the papers the next morning.

In graphic details, Jane’s friends and family read about the brutal attack. Also, a city full of complete strangers read all of the details.

Now, a couple of different things happen when the strangers get this bit of news. If someone hears about the story on the radio, they don’t have any pictures of any of the participants. So, most people picture themselves in one of the roles. This isn’t intentional, it’s just what pops into people’s heads. These people suffer mental and spiritual damage from the attack, no matter which role they play in the little visualization.

If someone reads about the story in the paper or sees it on the news, they get pictures of the victim and the “alleged” attacker. Now, in their visualization, they don’t have to picture themselves. They can picture the attack itself. And thanks to the accuracy of most news reports, they can form a pretty accurate recreation.

In a way, the victim is being victimized over and over again, in the minds of every person that reads or sees the story. Also, the crime is discussed at people’s workplaces, where details of the crimes are recalled. “Did you hear that he did this…?”

Every time the victim leaves her house, and faces strangers, she has to wonder if they know of the story. How many of you think you could meet Elizabeth Smart without bringing up her ordeal in some form or another. Maybe you wouldn’t actually mention it, but you’d treat her slightly different than you would if you didn’t know her story.

Then, 10 years later, after the wounds have started to heal a little, Tom gets caught. Now, the full story, and all of the pictures are posted all over the tv and newspapers, yet again. This time, they put recent pictures of the victim and “alleged” attacker. Just in case she tried to dye her hair or change her name to get out of the public eye.

irateplatypus · 01-27-2005, 06:20 PM

yes, i do think that mass media does have that effect on people in certain situations.

however, media exploitation of human suffering is pretty much par for the course. most of the news we get is sensational or about one person wronging another. the public's voyeuristic urge is so strong (like you alluded to in your post) that very little news is valuable to the consumer (of the news coverage) except in the form of entertainment. when you think about it... not much more than the weather, some sports and a bit of political coverage is all you really need to live out your life as you would do otherwise. anything on top of that is purely to satisfy entertainment demand.

C4 Diesel · 01-27-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojodragon

Now, a couple of different things happen when the strangers get this bit of news. If someone hears about the story on the radio, they don’t have any pictures of any of the participants. So, most people picture themselves in one of the roles. This isn’t intentional, it’s just what pops into people’s heads. These people suffer mental and spiritual damage from the attack, no matter which role they play in the little visualization.

If someone reads about the story in the paper or sees it on the news, they get pictures of the victim and the “alleged” attacker. Now, in their visualization, they don’t have to picture themselves. They can picture the attack itself. And thanks to the accuracy of most news reports, they can form a pretty accurate recreation.

In a way, the victim is being victimized over and over again, in the minds of every person that reads or sees the story. Also, the crime is discussed at people’s workplaces, where details of the crimes are recalled. “Did you hear that he did this…?”

I would argue against the statement that most people visualize themselves in one of the roles. This has no factual basis, it's just that if anything I think people would make a conscious effort not to.

Also, I don't consider the "imaginary" victim being victimized as an actual cause of harm or distress so long as it is not taking place in her own mind.

...but yes, the media sucks. I watch BBC on PBS whenever I get a chance, and read all my news from BBC World News. Compared to American media, they're totally nonbiased and focus primarily on world events and politics. I get my Business news (a necessity for me) from CNBC, mostly. I NEVER watch the local news, "news magazine" shows (60 minutes, dateline, etc.) or any of that garbage.

frogza · 01-27-2005, 08:27 PM

I don't watch the news, most of what they report on is really non of my business. I can keep up on events online, that way I can skip all the garbage and just get to the facts. Sometimes I'll catch a news item onthe radio while I'm driving, if it sounds like something I should know about, I'll go home and look into it online. There have been many times that I find something online and then a few days later during a news trailer they'll present it as breaking news.

It does get to me when reporters get all up in someone's face right after a loved one has died just so they can ask some stupid question like "How are you feeling right now?" But the stupidity and insensitivity of reporters should be a thread of its own.

Suave · 01-27-2005, 10:20 PM

It most certainly does. I wouldn't treat Elizabeth Smart any differently than anyone else, because I make a point of it to avoid the bullshit that newspapers (I don't watch TV news) print on crap like that. I think everyone should (of course they won't, but they should) and maybe news agencies would switch to actual NEWS.

nickynicole · 01-28-2005, 02:04 AM

I'd like to think that in the case of rape, the media is generally a little more sensitive, and I don't recall ever discussing with coworkers the logistics of an attack.

I do see your point. In the case of kidnappings, I think you are totally justified. It's interesting to see the crimes that the media persues, as well as the typified race/socioeconomic status of the poeple involved.

flstf · 01-28-2005, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojodragon

Meanwhile, the local news station, which is monitoring the police radio net, gets wind of the story. They know that this suspect is wanted for rape. The police decide to use the media as a tool to catch Tom. So, that night at 11, the story is plastered all over the tv, and in the papers the next morning.

Also, when Tom is accused they plaster his picture all over the front page. When he is found to be innocent they put it on page 37.

d*d · 01-28-2005, 08:33 AM

this is just not a common occurence (the way the process has been described, not the rape) Police are aware of the damage that using media has and it is not a common tool in rape cases for the reasons stated. Of course I can only speak for british media but I think as an example it's flawed.

01-27-2005, 04:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
mojodragon Darth Mojo Location: Right behind you...	Mass Media enables Mass Suffering This is something I’ve been forming in my mind for some time. I’m going to try to get the idea across, without confusing everyone. Please note that I’m not attacking Free Speech in any way. Also, the names and events (except one, which should be obvious) are made up. Jane gets raped by Tom. She suffers physical, mental, and spiritual damage from the attack. She reports the attack to the police, who puts out an arrest warrant for Tom. His description and crime are radioed to patrol cars, who start looking for Tom. Meanwhile, the local news station, which is monitoring the police radio net, gets wind of the story. They know that this suspect is wanted for rape. The police decide to use the media as a tool to catch Tom. So, that night at 11, the story is plastered all over the tv, and in the papers the next morning. In graphic details, Jane’s friends and family read about the brutal attack. Also, a city full of complete strangers read all of the details. Now, a couple of different things happen when the strangers get this bit of news. If someone hears about the story on the radio, they don’t have any pictures of any of the participants. So, most people picture themselves in one of the roles. This isn’t intentional, it’s just what pops into people’s heads. These people suffer mental and spiritual damage from the attack, no matter which role they play in the little visualization. If someone reads about the story in the paper or sees it on the news, they get pictures of the victim and the “alleged” attacker. Now, in their visualization, they don’t have to picture themselves. They can picture the attack itself. And thanks to the accuracy of most news reports, they can form a pretty accurate recreation. In a way, the victim is being victimized over and over again, in the minds of every person that reads or sees the story. Also, the crime is discussed at people’s workplaces, where details of the crimes are recalled. “Did you hear that he did this…?” Every time the victim leaves her house, and faces strangers, she has to wonder if they know of the story. How many of you think you could meet Elizabeth Smart without bringing up her ordeal in some form or another. Maybe you wouldn’t actually mention it, but you’d treat her slightly different than you would if you didn’t know her story. Then, 10 years later, after the wounds have started to heal a little, Tom gets caught. Now, the full story, and all of the pictures are posted all over the tv and newspapers, yet again. This time, they put recent pictures of the victim and “alleged” attacker. Just in case she tried to dye her hair or change her name to get out of the public eye.

01-27-2005, 06:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	yes, i do think that mass media does have that effect on people in certain situations. however, media exploitation of human suffering is pretty much par for the course. most of the news we get is sensational or about one person wronging another. the public's voyeuristic urge is so strong (like you alluded to in your post) that very little news is valuable to the consumer (of the news coverage) except in the form of entertainment. when you think about it... not much more than the weather, some sports and a bit of political coverage is all you really need to live out your life as you would do otherwise. anything on top of that is purely to satisfy entertainment demand. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

01-27-2005, 10:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	It most certainly does. I wouldn't treat Elizabeth Smart any differently than anyone else, because I make a point of it to avoid the bullshit that newspapers (I don't watch TV news) print on crap like that. I think everyone should (of course they won't, but they should) and maybe news agencies would switch to actual NEWS. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

01-27-2005, 08:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I don't watch the news, most of what they report on is really non of my business. I can keep up on events online, that way I can skip all the garbage and just get to the facts. Sometimes I'll catch a news item onthe radio while I'm driving, if it sounds like something I should know about, I'll go home and look into it online. There have been many times that I find something online and then a few days later during a news trailer they'll present it as breaking news. It does get to me when reporters get all up in someone's face right after a loved one has died just so they can ask some stupid question like "How are you feeling right now?" But the stupidity and insensitivity of reporters should be a thread of its own.

01-28-2005, 02:04 AM	#6 (permalink)
nickynicole Crazy Location: not here.	I'd like to think that in the case of rape, the media is generally a little more sensitive, and I don't recall ever discussing with coworkers the logistics of an attack. I do see your point. In the case of kidnappings, I think you are totally justified. It's interesting to see the crimes that the media persues, as well as the typified race/socioeconomic status of the poeple involved.

01-28-2005, 08:33 AM	#8 (permalink)
d*d Addict	this is just not a common occurence (the way the process has been described, not the rape) Police are aware of the damage that using media has and it is not a common tool in rape cases for the reasons stated. Of course I can only speak for british media but I think as an example it's flawed.