As I have been contemplating both the lecture and class discussion regarding the Ott and Aoki article Media Framing of Matther Shepard, I am struck by America’s malleability. The people outside of the actual happenings were influenced by whatever media they consumed. Although a slightly obvious statement, it is almost scary once the true meaning sinks in fully, especially if one looks at the motives of media producers, and the motives of the population in general.
The selectivity, partiality, and structure of the medias’ biases in storytelling were ones of pity, guilt, sadness, defeat, and in some ways mystery (will Shepard survive). While these biases were with the purpose of informing, they produce an attitude that is ingested by the public. What makes this media consumption alarming is if one flips the message of the media. What if the motives of the media producers were to portray Henderson and McKinney (the killers) as heroes? Ott and Aoki note that, “An event is selected to become a major news story based on its potential for drama.” What if the media praised the antagonists' actions… what would America think then?
It is difficult to describe the true motives of the public at the time of Shepard’s fight for life, but the authors note that the public identified with Shepard as a friend and son. The suffering of someone they had never met impacted them as if he was a family member. Step back and contemplate the impact of that hurt. America was hurt by the death of this young man, and the media was happy about it.
In no way am I saying the media is a tool used for destructive purposes alone, because there are thousands of benefits to media, however I am saying that I am glad the media chose to portray the story the way they did. I’m glad America was saddened by Shepard’s death and not celebrating the actions of the two killers.
No comments:
Post a Comment