THE SEMANTICS OF “THE MEDIA”

In the past twelve days here in the United States we have had a strange political experience occurring. A young man was shot and killed in Ferguson Missouri by a police officer. Normally, this will lead to an investigation to find out the details and then, depending on results, would lead either to a prosecution or the validation of the policeman’s conduct. But not here.

Many people in Ferguson Missouri interpreted the action to be an injustice by the policeman and so conducted a protest to say so, which is their political right. Normally, they would have protested walked in protest, made their voice and perspective known, and that would have been it. But not here.

Somehow the event hit “the media” and suddenly the event of a single death became a big media event. Dozens and dozens of news media showed up, turned on their cameras, and that fed the protest so that it went on day after day after day. As a consequence, that single event has dominated “the news” here for more than a week-and-a-half. So what began as local people protesting a perceived injustice by the police, suddenly became a “national issue.” Then, instead of waiting for the investigation to take place, “the media” descended upon Ferguson Missouri so that the protesters now had a national platform.

This then attracted other people who figured out that if they could fan the anger of the protesters, get a mob response, and create a context where they could loot and steal. And that’s what has happened. This then brought in more media to cover the looting, destruction, and rioting! And the more the media, the more the context where those who are criminally-minded could unleash their desire to burn down buildings, loot stores, destroy property. And with that more media pored in the place.

Now I can easily believe that good people living in Ferguson Missouri began by simply wanting to peacefully protest what they considered an injustice. I can believe that they had good intentions and motives. And, of course, they have a legal right to peacefully protest. I can just as easily believe that most of them go home at night at a decent hour because they have jobs to go to, families to take care of, etc.

Yet with regard to protesting, what is the purpose? Is not the purpose to make your point and to have your voice heard? If that’s the purpose of protesting—to register a complaint, to get attention to an injustice, then a question: How long should one protest? How long is it proper for the protests to go on? Why is it that night after night for more than a week, the people are still protesting? Have they not made their point? Have they not registered a complaint so that there is now awareness of an injustice? So how much longer should the protest go on?

Further, if the media’s purpose is to record such, when is their job done? When should they go home? The other night I scanned the different news media—CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, etc.— and in addition to the formal media, there were hundreds of people with cameras holding up their phones and cameras. Why? To record the crowds? To catch a scene of rioting, the destruction of property, the agitators throwing Molotov cocktails at the police or at commercial buildings? Watching all of that, I wonder: At what point is the media creating the context that makes the problem worse? At what point does the media become a big part of the problem? If “the media” left, would the people who are inciting more anger, hostility, and conflict also go home?

It seems to me that one of the big contributing factors to this has been the media. As a Neuro- Semanticist I have to ask, “What are the semantics of the media? What does the presence of the media mean to people? What does it mean to the people in Ferguson Missouri, to the protesters, to the agitators from other places, to the looters, etc.?”

For the protesters it means that their voice and complaint is now amplified. It means that they have a larger platform and that they have more “power” in what they want to highlight. To the agitators who have come in from other places, it means they have a context in which they can create trouble and start a “revolution.” To others it means that they can use this event to promote a particular agenda, they can make it about race, or police brutality, or militarization of police, or whatever agenda they have.

The fact is—the media is political. It is one of the political powers which so subtly influences and controls life in the twenty-first century. Whether we’re talking about newspapers, magazines, television, cable news, blogs, social media of Facebook or Tweets, movies, Hollywood, documentaries, video-games, etc., “the media” plays a tremendous role in our lives today. Everybody knows this and “the media” also knows this, which is why all forms of media spends money on expanding what they are doing. Well, this is true until someone suggests that “the media” contributes to some of our social problems. Let someone say that the media plays a role in violence, and then we hear from “the media” that it is “just entertainment and nothing more.”

The most subtle aspect of the media is how it frames things. How it formulates and arranges their presentations and interviews influences the meanings that people make of things. How it primes the situation via the words and the metaphors they use very subtly influences the meanings and reactions of people. How it constructs the significance of the event shapes how people respond.

Now, if the media is political and exercises a lot of power in our lives in these ways—should we not hold the media more responsible about what it does and how it operates?