Reality TV
It sure has been an interesting last couple of weeks, hasn't it? Nature seems to be running amok wherever you turn. First we have the tsunamis, then we have torrential downpours leading to mudslides in Southern California. Here in the northwest we even got another ice storm to remind us of last year's fun-filled winter. One cannot turn on the television without being subject to some sort of 24-hour disaster coverage from one corner of the globe or another.
As I was making my long, boring drive from San Francisco to San Diego last week, I listened to a popular radio talk show. The subject of the discussion was the public and the media's incessant fascination with disaster coverage. We can't seem to get enough of the images of death, destruction and despair we see captured by the lenses of amateur videographers. The host seemed troubled by this development. However, the callers to the show were nearly unanimous in stating that they loved the coverage, and found it enjoyable.
How have we reached such a point in our culture that we find watching real images of suffering to be good prime-time entertainment? We are so accustomed to instantly receiving massive amounts of information that we have become desensitized to the reality behind the images. Yet we call it "reality TV." Why have we become content with vicarious living? Many of the callers to the radio show stated that they loved the footage because it was "real" or "thrilling." They get to experience the visceral excitement of tragedy without actually having to participate.
However, the footage we see may also have a positive effect. Seeing the horrors of the tsunami's destruction probably prompted many people to contribute to the relief efforts. Before the information age, we wouldn't have even found out about the tsunami for several weeks. So the whole situation seems to me a mixed bag. What do you think?
As I was making my long, boring drive from San Francisco to San Diego last week, I listened to a popular radio talk show. The subject of the discussion was the public and the media's incessant fascination with disaster coverage. We can't seem to get enough of the images of death, destruction and despair we see captured by the lenses of amateur videographers. The host seemed troubled by this development. However, the callers to the show were nearly unanimous in stating that they loved the coverage, and found it enjoyable.
How have we reached such a point in our culture that we find watching real images of suffering to be good prime-time entertainment? We are so accustomed to instantly receiving massive amounts of information that we have become desensitized to the reality behind the images. Yet we call it "reality TV." Why have we become content with vicarious living? Many of the callers to the radio show stated that they loved the footage because it was "real" or "thrilling." They get to experience the visceral excitement of tragedy without actually having to participate.
However, the footage we see may also have a positive effect. Seeing the horrors of the tsunami's destruction probably prompted many people to contribute to the relief efforts. Before the information age, we wouldn't have even found out about the tsunami for several weeks. So the whole situation seems to me a mixed bag. What do you think?
10:37 AM
media coverage is good to let the world know what is happening....
but, just the facts, please.
sometimes I watch the coverage with the sound off. the picture says it all....