Sapient creatures depend on the powers of cognition. Humankind needs food for thought, not just for the body. Therefore, our species seeks to understand every facet of the world in which we live. We assimilate and digest an information-rich diet by which we daily reason and justify our living. Mass media provides the feeding tube to which nearly every human being is connected from the earliest stages of life. Because we are what we eat, this same mass media bears responsibility to ensure the healthy diet of our society. But does the media feed us a balanced diet?
In centuries past, we enjoyed a better balance between physical exercise, diet, and social interaction. In that pre-electric age, we depended on word of mouth for news from other places. These messages were only as credible as the sources from which we learned them. In those days, a good name was to be “chosen rather than great riches” (Bible, Proverbs 22:1). A man’s word was esteemed his bond. To stain another’s name was to invite a deadly duel in order that personal honor might be restored. Consequently, communication was neither flippant nor cursory. Then, as now, information was a valuable commodity. To abuse the conveyance of that power was a criminal act, equal to treason. The highest duty of man was to be forthright in his living, his actions, and his speech. If truth prevailed, a nation of people upholding such high ideals would be invincible. However, straightforward communication has not proven to be sustainable among the lot of men. Today’s obesity of information has become something other and we are disconnected from it.
In the modern information age, knowledge continues to empower its bearer. As a result, the magnitude of media’s obligation to inform is unprecedented in the history of civilization. Nevertheless, concerning matters of vital importance, “we receive insufficient, misleading or even no information at all” (Suzuki & Dressel, 2005, pg. 103). If knowledge empowers, then ignorance cripples. The debilitating effect can be seen in the ever-increasing fragmentation of society. Who is responsible to ensure the reversal of this unsustainable trend?
This social responsibility of mass media has been the subject of much research, as indicated by the number of peer-reviewed studies available at online warehouses such as Jstore.com. Social responsibility theory stresses the good of society above the needs of individuals (Ferguson, 1997). Individuals are free and independent only as long as the common good benefits from individual actions. The Universal Human Rights Declaration, on display at the United Nations, epitomizes the social responsibility paradigm, listing the rights of every human on the planet within the overseeing constraint of the common good (“Declaration”, 1948). Many believed consensus on such a document would be easy to achieve. However, critics approach from more than one angle.
Some critics of social responsibility theory cite the preamble to the Declaration of Independence as guaranteeing freedom of individual rights, period! These critics argue that any enforcement of a societal norm could lead to the oppressive government control from which our nation’s founders originally escaped. Another group of critics, Islamists, denounce the Judeo-Christian flavor of the Universal Declaration. Summarily disagreeing on the basis of perceived religious bias, fifty-seven Muslim nations rewrote their own version of the declaration to assure compliance with Shari’ah law (“Cairo Declaration”, 1990). In the Cairo Declaration, the race of Adam is ultimately responsible to Allah. Such divergent worldviews will surely produce different assessments of the information we receive.
In short, the discrepancy in worldviews both domestically and abroad makes the possibility of unbiased reporting difficult at best. Widespread cynicism toward mainstream media outlets is justifiably expected given the fact that so many opposing views cannot all be right. Wading through the morass of available information on 500 channels, satellite radio, and the World Wide Web, is daunting, exhausting, and ultimately, inconclusive. How do broadcast media respond to the air of uncertainty felt by their audience?
According to Suzuki and Dressel, due to reasons political and economic, mainstream corporate media would rather stay away from the vital issues plaguing our society or cover them superficially if at all. “Television and the radio are more about distraction and amusement than they are about discourse on serious issues” (Suzuki & Dressel, 2005, pg. 107). The marketplace is good at entertaining us. Perhaps the mental stress of facing so much information causes us to seek diversionary escapes. After all, supply and demand got us to this point. It may be an information age in which we live, but it’s a consumer-based economy that pays for the distribution of so much information. In a word, media follows the money because that is how to stay in business. The question emerges, when money talks, does social responsibility walk?
The economy of scale represented by mass media is so large that detailed research of its many facets is to be expected. One such study detailed the eye fixations of readers browsing through magazines. A mathematical equation was then formulated to correlate the eye fixations with memory retention (Pieters, Warlop, Wedel. 2002). Such attention to the minute details of advertising, demonstrates the value that mass media places on gaining our attention. It’s this supreme interest in gaining our attention that raises the suspicion whether private or public interest is preeminent in the hearts and minds of those who control the flow of information. Ratings determine the advertising prices that can be charged. Media content determines the ratings. The question arises, do consumers demand news of vital importance or do they prefer entertainment in their seeking escape from the daily grind?
According to a study of mass media’s influence on public conceptions of social problems, it was concluded that awareness and subsequent change were greatly affected by the context in which information was framed when presented. Not only so, based on repeated impressions, attention to social issues “develops gradually” (Hubbard, DeFleur, DeFleur. 1975). When media outlets exercise selectivity regarding the issues they report, public awareness and subsequent action are likewise affected. Hence, the issues selected as well as those avoided can be reason to suspect bias. When followed to its logical conclusion, the perceived bias may actually be a form of media advocacy.
The media as advocate is very different from the traditional view of the role of media in society. In his report on media advocacy, Lawrence Wallach explains, “traditional forms of mass media emphasize the information gap. Media advocacy, on the other hand, emphasizes the power gap” (Wallach, 1995, pg. 422). Wallach contends the purpose of media is not to fill the void with information, but to empower the community with solutions. When media advocates, it becomes a source of solutions instead of disseminating raw knowledge.
Structural barriers inhibit the transition from merely informing to advocating for change. For example, public agencies generally focus on skill development to enable the disenfranchised the opportunity to improve their quality of life (Wallach, 1995). Media advocacy theory goes a step further by proposing a change of focus from the individual to the structure of the social condition itself. By advocating a change to the structural condition, the odds of improving quality of life among the newly skilled individuals, are improved. The principle is the same as salting the horse’s oats to improve the odds that when led to water, the horse will drink.
I agree with Suzuki and Dressel’s thesis that knowledge empowers (Suzuki & Dressel, 2005, pg. 103). Furthermore, I agree the media, as disseminators of information, have an inherent responsibility to present all sides of important issues. Partial information cannot hope to furnish complete solutions. However, I feel it is naïve to trust any single media outlet will present a complete picture of vital issues. Everyone of us sees the world from a unique vantage point. It’s the synthesis of our individual views that lends understanding to the collective society. Rather than legislate the simplification of free speech outlets, it behooves us to promote critical thinking skills to future generations; with the expectation they will discriminate between the 500 channels, the satellite radio, and the World Wide Web and conclude viable solutions to critical problems. Equipping people to navigate the sea of information is more easily achievable than attempting to hold back the tide of extraneous and oftentimes misleading information. To tame the information beast, we need a trained mind with a keen sense of discernment.
Critical thinkers remain calm in the face of information overload because they withhold judgment until all the facts can be reviewed. Critical thinkers possess the ability to dissect bodies of thought for examination and diagnosis. Power does not reside in the information itself but in the mind that can sift through and harness it. Besides, the abundance of information available to us today does not mean we can know more anyway. As New York Times columnist, David Brooks noted, “The magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less” (Brooks, 2007). According to Brooks, we are outsourcing our brain to information technologies from calculators and computers to global positioning devices. We no longer need to know the math formulas when a calculator will give us the answer. And mapping directions to our next destination is accomplished with our GPS equipped car so our brain doesn’t need to learn the information in advance. My computer stores vital information on my brain’s behalf. I can leave the cerebral activities to technology! To the degree we all follow this trend, society will be impoverished within a vault of disconnected and externalized knowledge.
Finally, more information will not ensure accurate information. And restricting extraneous information will not guarantee the accuracy of what remains. Therefore, the focus should be on developing critical thinking skills in order to protect future generations from naïve acceptance of misleading information. Healthy minds crave a lean diet of quality information that matters. Poor tastes do not provide a sustainable future. Discriminating tastes will not accept junk food.
References
Brooks, D. (2006, October 26). The outsourced brain [Op-Ed column]. The New York Times. Retrieved September 15, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/opinion/26brooks.html
Cairo Declaration of Human Rights. (1990). Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm
Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Ferguson, A. (1997). Moral responsibility and social change: A new theory of self, Third Wave Feminisms, 12, 116-141.
Hubbard, J.C., DeFleur, M.L., & DeFleur, L.B. (1975). Mass media influences on public conceptions of social problems. Social Problems, 23, 22-34.
Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory. Management Science, 48, 765-781.
Suzuki, D., & Dressel, H. (2005). From naked ape to superspecies, humanity and the global eco-crisis. Vancouver: Greystone Books.
Wallack, L. (1994). Media advocacy: A strategy for empowering people and communities. Journal of Public Health Policy, 15, 420-436.
