AMERICAN MEDIA'S FALL FROM GRACE

Here is the absolutely tasteless photo run by the New Yorker portraying Barack and Michelle Obama as black militant, terrorist, flag burning, Osama Bin Laden loving, Americans looking to take over America. When I first heard this story I couldn't believe The New Yorker would do such a thing. Then I thought about it and my surprise turned to a disappointing confirmation of the continued fall from grace of American media.

I have my issues with media and it seems more and more credible news sources are becoming shameless in their attempts to gain attention and notoriety. There used to be more of a distinct line between tabloid journalism and reputable journalism.The New Yorker has always had my respect as the latter but this shows that they too have been compromised.
If the New Yorker is looking more like The National Enquirer, red flags need to be raised.

This is the new American society we live in. Gossip, and controversy are what draws attention, which draws ratings, consumer buys, and brand awareness. Is the responsibility of media to have a moral compass? Or in America, our land of capitalism and freedom of speech, is what makes money more important? Freedom of Speech and capitalism have always been part of the fabric of our society and have been vital in America's rise to greatness. However, there has always been a system of checks and balances that have prevented the rights to earn a dollar, and say what you want to say from leading to anarchy and greater evil than good. That system of checks and balances is being challenged more and more greatly,I would argue, as we deteriorate into a tabloid crazed, if it makes dollars it makes sense society.

Before I digress into generalizing this situation, let me give it the specific attention it deserves.
What the hell were the decision makers at The New Yorker thinking when they decided to move forward with this image on the cover of its magazine? No one had the sense to say ,"hmm, this might be kind of stupid." I would argue that someone did, but I'm sure the "buzz" and "wow" factor outweighed the idea that this could be damaging to the face of our nation, the odds on favorite to become the next President of The United States of America. This is not only damaging to Barack and Michelle Obama, but to America. The reaction to the "caricature" has been almost uniformly critical, but does that really matter? I'm sure the issue was flying off the newsstands at a exponentially higher rate this morning. To The New Yorker's credit they are not shying away from the controversy and issuing a fake apology through an expensive PR company. Here is the explanation New Yorker Editor In Chief David Remnick gave to defend the cover.

"The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls," Remnick said."What we set out to do was to throw all these images together, which are all over the top and to shine a kind of harsh light on them, to satirize them. That's part of what we do."

A great explanation on the surface but proper analysis of the cover does not give that clear reason for the image. The image has no description or disclaimer attached to it. It simply puts the picture out there for people to reach whatever conclusions they want to make. The articles written within the magazine are ones that cast Obama in a very positive light, but that does not excuse the damage done by the cover. If Remnick's justification is valid than what does it really say about America? I am not sure if I've seen an image more blatantly racist against so many different races. Is this sense that America is really a "united" nation of immigrants, a complete fallacy? Do we all have our own prejudices, that although aren't expressed outwardly, may have a more damaging effect by feeling them privately? I know I've opened a Pandora's box, and this is a discussion for a separate piece and I do have an opinion. What I will say is that this magazine cover does damage the image of our nation. Even if all of this is true and leads to a real debate, The New Yorker's publication of this image was extremely irresponsible.

Back to my general frustration. Every form of American media is becoming greatly influenced by the components that make tabloid journalism popular. Fox News, the least credible, most salacious, blatantly racist, news channel is head and shoulders above its competitors in the ratings wars. Shock jocks are the most popular radio talk show hosts. What the name of Brad and Angelina's new baby is more important than the films they appear in. Music Television channels (VH1, MTV, BET) are no longer sources for viewers to watch videos from their favorite artists but havens for gossip heavy, sleazy reality television shows. Sports coverage is becoming less about the sports and more about the Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson rumors, and the off the field issues of athletes. Websites such as TMZ, Perez Hilton, and Bossip are more popular than any other websites on the internet. Should we not be worried that this is what the majority of Americans are drawn to?

The reason that I am so frustrated is that this type of media's growing popularity in mainstream culture leads to a very divided society. In the past week we have had Jesse Jackson's "hot mic" comments, The cover of the New Yorker, and Barack Obama's comments made specifically to an African American audience be put out in the public sphere in an aim to create division amongst people. Yes, all of these stories have a "buzz" factor to them but the way in which they are being publicized causes significant damage.

For example, I was watching the Fox News (YouTube) special report on Jesse Jackson's, " I want to chop Barack Obama's nuts off" comment. The fact that they publicized those comments the way they did led to a perceived division between the highest profile African American Civil Rights leader, and Barack Obama. A division that neither Obama nor Jackson had made public nor needed to be public at this critical time. It was very poor judgment on Fox News part, and I don't believe CNN would have aired the comments. What was more irritating than the report was the way that it was built up all day on the internet, the blogosphere, and by Fox to generate ratings. I also will say that I am irritated when any civil rights leader appears on Fox News period, and their overall credibility comes into question. It seems there is nothing to gain as Fox will always either spin your comments or prevent you from getting your point across. I have long banned Fox. At the very least it should come with the same parental advisory disclaimer that music is subjected to. Yes ,I know, another subject for another day. I'm feeling so restricted!

I will conclude by saying it is important for us to stop and look in the mirror as a nation, and question our media, to challenge it, and not simply embrace what they feed us. The media is to blame partially but we also control it to a certain degree by demanding what we want to watch. TMZ is popular because millions of people demand it. Fox News is the most popular news source because it is how the majority of Americans who watch news prefer to get it. Our media's credibility is under question around the world not just by me. I will not question the right of society to demand what it wants and that media has the right in America to package the message the way they want. I will not say that those choices can't be questioned and that they can't lead to damaging outcomes. The issue here is not the product but the disturbing lack of resistance to it.