Blame the Media

You are an expert in psychobiology. Throughout your twenty years of research you have gone to great lengths to avoid the reification of artificial dichotomies, i.e., “nature” and “nurture”. A top reporter from a reputable quality newspaper spends three hours with you and then writes an extensive story in which everything is correct except one sentence in which he gets the two confused. You are furious and blame the media.

You are your country’s delegate to a conference on global warming. Your superior expects you to make an important speech. During the conference the Russian delegate takes off one shoe and bangs the table with it. That is what the media write about, not your important speech. You get a bad mark from your superior. You are furious and blame the media.

You play a Bach partita in Carnegie Hall. A critic prefers Joseph Schuster’s interpretation. You know Joseph Schuster. He does not play the Bach partitas in public. You are furious and blame the media.

You are the CEO of a company making machine guns. You have a special office on media relations. But in spite of all their efforts it could not prevent the news department of a prominent television network from accusing you of having obtained a government contract without tender or – even better – of being careless into what hands your products will fall. In either case you are furious and blame the media.

What, after they have calmed down, can all these injured parties do to repair the damage? If the offending organization has an ombudsman, they can complain to him or her. They can pull strings to have the guilty punished. They can write letters to the editor.

What they must not do is blame the media in toto. For one simple reason. To communicate information, there is nothing other than the media that can do it. The media, of course, includes the Internet. And, to stretch a point, word of mouth.

The media, run by human beings, are fallible. No doubt you have a point if you say that journalistic standards have plummeted in recent years, but that doesn’t help, does it? You don’t want the state to interfere, do you?

But there is one important consideration. With the exception of public institutions like the CBC, which is a crown corporation, or the provincial educational stations, which are part of the public service, the media are usually owned by big corporations that have their own interests. Is this relevant to the questions posed?

It could be. In exceptional political and commercial matters it may very well be relevant. But in most cases it is not.

Journalists have their own code of ethics and their own likes and dislikes. That may be more relevant if you think you have been unfairly treated.

And most important: the media have their own interests, which are unlikely to be yours. You want to be truthful. They want to be truthful and popular.

The fact remains that the media are everything. How else but through the media can you get your message across?

By ESP?

Osmosis?