Modern dichotomy
Yesterday I read a newspaper article by Marc Gellman titled
"Jew and Christian intermarriage worries reader" citing a majority of Americans would consider marrying a Jewish person and a majority of Jewish people marry outside the religion. This article made the point that these attitudes and behaviors reflect a very different American landscape than in the past, with greater acceptance for Jews.
Today I read an article (in the same newspaper) by Jennifer Peltz titled "Madoff case brings out the bigots" citing anti-Semetic reactions to the financial scandal. This article claimed vile reactions found on online messageboards repeating the link of Jewish character to swindling were a throwback to Middle Age characterizations against Jews.
How can we reconcile this difference? Rather easily: the former article depicts a statistical representation of behaviors and the latter article depicts words written online without evidence of statistics nor changes in behaviors. In short, this represents the dichotomy of our modern era, where technology allows minority opinions expressed easily; statements reach far beyond the scope of the fringe and into widespread media. In direct contrast a majority of people act in accord with a lack of religious prejudice and society appears to be moving beyond religious preference as a qualification of a person's character.
It is too easy to dismiss this phenomenon (words from a society not matching its behaviors) as a quirk of the Internet. (I read both articles in the same newspaper - a print medium.) There is no reason for minority opinions to reach as far as they do but the range of media outlets available almost assures it. The incentive to generate the most buzz with the most engaging articles creates a competition that is often a downward spiral away from being newsworthy. As sad as it was to see people stranded in their cars when a water pipe broke in a Midwestern state, the images plastered behind the words breaking news on all major television channels would not be possible without our advanced technology and a healthy fear of competitors by the media outlets. Without sensational imagery that event would have been relegated to below the national radar, as are most small scale tragedies.
Assuming this is all true, the forces at play are strengthening an entrenched strategy. Technology affords reporters increasing access to imagery, sounds, and stories at breakneck speeds. Cable television, satellite television, and of course the Internet presumably will remain very competitive markets due to the relative ease of market entry and profit margins. One could postulate that this scenario requires an enlightened audience more savvy in selecting media channels - I find that an impractical ideal not worth consideration. I do find the notion of further technological advancements altering the media landscape preferable. Until then we must endure the differences in what we read and see said about ourselves and what statistics reveal.
"Jew and Christian intermarriage worries reader" citing a majority of Americans would consider marrying a Jewish person and a majority of Jewish people marry outside the religion. This article made the point that these attitudes and behaviors reflect a very different American landscape than in the past, with greater acceptance for Jews.
Today I read an article (in the same newspaper) by Jennifer Peltz titled "Madoff case brings out the bigots" citing anti-Semetic reactions to the financial scandal. This article claimed vile reactions found on online messageboards repeating the link of Jewish character to swindling were a throwback to Middle Age characterizations against Jews.
How can we reconcile this difference? Rather easily: the former article depicts a statistical representation of behaviors and the latter article depicts words written online without evidence of statistics nor changes in behaviors. In short, this represents the dichotomy of our modern era, where technology allows minority opinions expressed easily; statements reach far beyond the scope of the fringe and into widespread media. In direct contrast a majority of people act in accord with a lack of religious prejudice and society appears to be moving beyond religious preference as a qualification of a person's character.
It is too easy to dismiss this phenomenon (words from a society not matching its behaviors) as a quirk of the Internet. (I read both articles in the same newspaper - a print medium.) There is no reason for minority opinions to reach as far as they do but the range of media outlets available almost assures it. The incentive to generate the most buzz with the most engaging articles creates a competition that is often a downward spiral away from being newsworthy. As sad as it was to see people stranded in their cars when a water pipe broke in a Midwestern state, the images plastered behind the words breaking news on all major television channels would not be possible without our advanced technology and a healthy fear of competitors by the media outlets. Without sensational imagery that event would have been relegated to below the national radar, as are most small scale tragedies.
Assuming this is all true, the forces at play are strengthening an entrenched strategy. Technology affords reporters increasing access to imagery, sounds, and stories at breakneck speeds. Cable television, satellite television, and of course the Internet presumably will remain very competitive markets due to the relative ease of market entry and profit margins. One could postulate that this scenario requires an enlightened audience more savvy in selecting media channels - I find that an impractical ideal not worth consideration. I do find the notion of further technological advancements altering the media landscape preferable. Until then we must endure the differences in what we read and see said about ourselves and what statistics reveal.
respond or e-mail this post:
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home