Asked what he would do to improve a government, the ancient Chinese sage Confucius answered that his first measure would be "to correct language." He meant that if words don't mean what they seem to mean people cannot put any plan into action as intended. The state of language at the dawn of
In The Media Mythmakers, Benjamin Radford, managing editor of The Skeptical Inquirer magazine, offers hundreds of examples of deceptive practices in journalism, advertising, political activism, public relations, and charity appeals. The real danger to the public, he insists, comes not from outright lies about events or individuals, because in most cases facts can ultimately be proven and mistakes corrected. But the emotional power of images, sound bites, and slogans can exert deep and lasting influence on our opinions and behavior as consumers, voters, and citizens.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
The detailed coverage of violent crimes dominating local TV news shows seldom includes any larger context. The cumulative impression left in the minds of viewers is that violent crime is rampant and on the rise. As a result, many people live in fear and many more support the idea of ever-larger police forces, tougher laws, and bigger prisons without considering the actual crime rates in their community or across the nation.
Dramatic incidents like the sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C., area in the fall of 2002 receive so much media attention that, again, the actual numbers of people affected and the likelihood of such attacks being repeated anywhere else become wildly exaggerated in people's minds. In the media-fueled emotional state following such spectacular disasters, the effort and expense of turning schools into locked fortresses or putting cameras on every street to monitor suspicious individuals can seem insignificant compared to the hope of keeping our children safe from harm. Yet truly effective measures require clear thinking and clearly worded policies that citizens--not only lawyers and politicians--can understand. Too often the long-term future implications of new anticrime laws and policies are not even considered in the rush to feel safer (or appear to be responsive to public concerns) by taking rapid and visible action.
Misleading practices by advertisers are another subject of public concern. Governments have long limited ads for alcohol and tobacco products and examined claims by drug companies, carmakers, food suppliers, and toy manufacturers to protect the public health. But advertising uses emotional appeals to shift the viewer's focus away from facts. Viewers who do not take the trouble to distinguish between provable claims and pleasant but meaningless word play end up buying "the sizzle, not the steak" and often paying high.
Pressures from government on the media are less direct in the United States and most Western nations than in countries where the tradition of a free press and public access to information is not well established. Pressures in the West tend to be more economic (will sponsors or owners/stockholders object to a particular topic or reporting slant?) and legal/subjective (will some individual or group protest or file a lawsuit based on what we air or publish?).
The best defense against misleading ads and sensational news coverage is not tighter controls on the media, but more education and more critical judgment among media consumers. Just as we train children to be wary of strangers offering candy, to count change at a store, and to kick the tires before buying a used car, we must make the effort to step back and judge the value of news stories, press releases, and advertisements, and master the skills required to separate spin from substance.
Sources: Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us by Benjamin Radford. Prometheus Books. 2003. 324 pages. $25. Order from the Futurist Bookshelf, www.wfs.org/bkshelf.htm.
"The Limits of Media Power" by Robert J. Samuelson, The Washington Post (October 2, 2003).