It never ceases to amaze me that whenever anyone mentions that the media may be at fault, they shriek that they (did not say, do, start it) just repeated what was said/done so that the people would know. I wonder if the people always need to know, and why the media no longer seems to be able to figure out what is really mentionable or newsworthy.
I had a lot to say when Imus spouted his words of wisdom. But here I will just dwell on my view of the media’s responsibility in it. My take on this is if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Well we know it makes a sound, but if it does not have an audience, does it make a difference?
I don’t think it makes a difference until someone stumbles on it after the fall. At that time, maybe it has completely decomposed, or maybe it has become a safe haven for a variety of forest dwellers – large and small. But one thing for sure, it is no longer what it was before the fall.
So what does this have to do with the N-word, Imus, gangsta rap lyrics, etc? If the media did not amplify the sound so that all of the above was given an audience, where would it have been heard?
If the media had not continually repeated what Imus said, only that small population of Imus followers would have heard it. Since we really rarely hear much if anything from them or him usually, if the comment was contained or even ignored by the media at large, what power would it have?
What roll does the media play in supporting deviant behavior? If they did not popularize gangsta rap, would BLING be in the dictionary? Would bitch or ho be common terms in youth and younger adult language? Would young black males think that their life expectancy was less the age 21? Maybe for those who actually live the gangsta life, but for middle and upper middle class youth (and those with middle and upper middle class values) of all races should not even be aware of this life and should definitely not emulate it – but they do, thanks to the media.
There was a time when there were very few mainstream published black writers. Then self publication became popular and something else happened. We now have Connie Briscoe, Zane and Triple Crown. For a while, we only had Chester Himes and Donald Goines. Then Sister Souljah started the new wave of reality fiction readers. Now there is a tidal wave of baby mama drama and who did what to whom ghetto lore books.
Back in the day we called it blaxploitation, and although there was a lot of hoopla from the public about gangsta rap when it first came out, the media made sure that it was played enough to become mainstream, and to subliminally encrypt in the public mind that this is how black people live and think.
So what part of the blame belongs to the media? If they did not fan these issues then they would not become profitable. If these issues, behaviors, etc were not profitable, the proliferation of lifestyle, language, dress, etc, would lean toward something else – something that is profitable. Maybe that is where we come in by designing that which should be emulated.
I am not suggesting that we censure the media. I am saying that they are responsible for promoting negative behavior and presenting it frequently enough that people become immune to it and it becomes acceptable. They have a responsibility to the public to make sure that whatever then deem newsworthy is truly that. Also, that their role is to report that which is newsworthy, not to make news themselves.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If the media has a mic planted in the woods, everyone hears the sound.
