We all probably get a little thrill out of them because it means that someone was caught doing something, either unintentionally or they just didn't "intend" to be discovered. Now, they could have been caught doing something good, but, let's admit it, that's usually not the case. You see I think the reason people enjoy scandals is because they can relate to getting caught doing something they are embarrassed or ashamed of.
Journalists and reporters, on the other hand, may or may not revel in the occurrence. The reason they don't always like scandals is because it disrupts their routine. Reporters usually have "beats", which are locations where they can be sure to get one or more "news stories" in a day (for example: the white house). So, if the scandal doesn't occur at one of these locations then the event may seem like a nuisance to the reporter. However, soon enough the reporters get on top of the story and the LOVE it! They love it because readers are captivated with shock and awe, which reporters then use to their advantage by dragging the story out and digging up "new" information to keep the public hooked.
The benefit that scandals bring to the public is that the effector, the person or company that caused the happening, is not the promoter, the person who advocates the action or publicizes it (usually the opposite is the case). So, when scandals occur, the "news" tends to be less skewed because the person who committed the act isn't really trying to benefit from it.
One scandal that I found out about recently is referred to as the Tailhook scandal. The annual Tailhook Symposium was taking place for the 35th time in 1991, at which the Navy and Marine Corps gathered for debriefing. At this "planned" event something unexpected occurred. Over 80 women were sexually assaulted! What's worse is that apparently some officers were aware of the sexual violations and misconduct, but they did nothing to stop it from happening. I am sure the media ate this story up and that there was quite a bit of coverage. BUT, there is a problem with scandals, and many big "news" stories, they DIE DOWN.
I can sympathize with reporters because I'm sure that it gets boring for them if they continue writing about the same subject. Not to mention that the readers would probably get sick of it too. However, I think, as readers and the public, we need to encourage "follow up" and action. This means that reporters constantly update us on the situations and that, in this case, justice is served.
According to Steven Myers' article, and several other sources, the number of sexual assaults within the military (primarily against women) has NOT decreased. Women in the armed forces have to constantly be on their guard, not from the enemy army, but from the men along side them. It is very concerning and painful to read about the acts that have gone unreported or ignored. You see, although there may be people that the women can report to, many of the women are afraid of being pegged a "snitch" or being demoted, etc. I won't go into where the theology, that these disgusting acts suggest, comes from today. Today, I just want to demonstrate a weakness of the "news" and it's routines. Because until I started reading the book, The Lonely Soldier, two days ago I had not heard of sexual assaults within the armed forces AT ALL! I think the lack of coverage in the news on this serious problem demonstrates how significant issues come and go as "stories". The news wants to attract readership, so it can be influenced by popularity of subject matter, whether that subject seems important to you as an individual, or not.
What are your thoughts?
Sincerely, Cristi
(if you are looking for more information on the subject of women serving in the war and sexual assault DEFINITELY read The Lonely Soldier, which was just recently published in 2009!)
I think this is the second post where you share concern about poor reporting and/or the fact that you are uninformed on a topic. I don't think the media should solely shoulder the blame. The truth is, the root of the problem may be the opposite of what you think. It may not be scanty reporting that's the problem, but an overload of information. There is so much data flowing towards the reader/consumer of media at the same time, that it's hard to digest it all. I remember hearing about the Tailhook scandal years ago, but had you asked me for details I wouldn't have been able to come up with them. Fwiw...
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there is so much information out there. I understand that the media is not able to cover everything. I am not trying to blame them solely. I also believe we have a responsibility to find out about those less covered topic ourselves. I guess I need to make it clearer that, I think we are part of the reason that the news stories change or don't change because ultimately the reporters are seeking a certain audience (whether that be the greatest size, the wealthiest, etc), so they are catering to what they think we want to hear about, generally speaking.
ReplyDelete