Recently I’ve been seeing dozens of posts about Justin Bieber- all negative, most praising his arrests, and some refuting the importance of that news in light of Ukraine’s chaos- popping up all over Facebook. Baby, baby, baby oh would I like to challenge some of the assumptions underlying these posts. So if you gather round the campfire kids and spare a minute or two, I think I have an interesting dialogue for you. Writing this post, Im quite annoyed at seeing all the smug mug shots of Bieber on social media- and come on, we all are. But in a way, we shouldn’t be, at least not for the reasons we think. The saintly posts on how the media is incompetent because the martyrs in Ukraine are risking life and limb in their democracy to be upstaged in the news by a teenage pop star however… Well we shouldn’t be nearly as surprised or indignant at the American media as the posts claim. Bear with me, and I’d like to hear what you think as well. (Links to Ukraine and Justin Bieber if you’re unfamiliar with the issues: cnn/2014/01/23/showbiz/justin-bieber-arrest/ and topics.nytimes/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/ukraine/) First off, it’s a recurring pattern in US media. You know the story- Miley Cyrus in the VMA’s and the Philippine’s typhoon. Simultaneous occurrences, yet I only ever heard my Filipino nurses mention the tragedy (the latter) (I was in the hospital at the time). On the other hand, Mileys video circulated on the net for weeks. It’s situations like this that people are furious over, but it happens all the time; people shouldn’t be treating the Bieber vs. Ukraine incident as if it’s original. And anyway, it is our fault (besides some political agenda on media’s side) that this lack of serious-issue exposure on mainstream media is happening. Media is give and take, supply and demand. It features what we want to see, what we respond to, and the majority responds to celebrity drama, not because our society’s necessarily stupid, but because of simple human nature, psychology. Example: you know why so many charities display the story of a single distraught person or animal to get you to donate? We react sympathetically more easily to individuals and narratives, specific occurrences. Celebrities are individuals; nations, peoples are not. So it’s not very surprising- actually somewhat understandably excusable- that groups in natural disasters or political turmoil are apathetically treated by media followers. Believe me, I’ve had friends distressed over their inability to feel for their common man in shootings and earthquakes, but when the victims seem anonymous, it’s difficult to sympathize. “But that’s not good enough,” you say. “We can overcome our inherent behavior.” “Oh can we?” I ask. “Even in the face of the relevance and accessibility of the Bieber to us?” “What? Relevance and accessibility? Who do you think I am?” If you’ve ever teased or been teased (I’m a victim) for having hairdos that even remotely look like Bieber’s, helped down-vote his YouTube videos to record lows, or had his songs stuck in your head (not a victim, thank God), then you’re more likely to find Bieber relevant or accessible to your life than say Ukraine. He’s our peer, and we’re his generation. And there’s a reason we have such strong opinions about him: we know him, we’ve talked about him, he’s familiar to us, so we’ve had plenty chances to stubbornly decide whether Bieber’s good or bad. And Ukraine’s relevance? Let’s not even kid: unless you have a specific interest in international politics, are especially sympathetic, or are a citizen of the country or a historian specializing in the implications of Chernobyl, you can’t say definitively how Ukraine affects you. That’s not to say that Ukraine’s situation isn’t important, which it is, which you know. But the political and social threads of countries have been rampantly unraveling as long as we’ve known, and as long as we’ve known, few of these have had a direct and obvious impact on you (unless you’re Martin Luther King and say that apathy makes you as much an aggressor as the actual aggressors). For most, to see through the foggy, uncertain future of current political dramas and say “yes, these will be directly influential in my life” requires an uncommon, clear foresight and judgment. For now, because of Bieber’s prevalence in our society and quite possibly your past, he’s relevant. And with that relevance, he lends importance to his arrest. And there’s another hasty assumption: JB’s arrest isn’t important or worth reporting. Never say never. What about the proverbial 14 year old girl idolizing him? Is it not worth reporting for her sake that he’s not the gallant gentleman, the role model advising “stay humble” her naïve mind alleges he is? For many of his young, fawning members in this society, this is the first rude awakening of bad celebrity behavior. Or even if it’s not the first, this is the one featuring a celebrity prominent enough and with enough devotees to very possibly inspire some moral insight for many teenagers in a moral-free music generation. It is better now to provide a strong, shocking example of the dissonance between celebrity image and reality than leave it until later, when the 14 year old girls will be so far on the bandwagon that they can’t tell the difference between good and bad morally in the music world. Think that with enough unexamined celebrity scandals, these girls could eventually become the ones who cannot recognize any longer that it is simply not acceptable for Miley Cyrus to twerk on a married father in front of millions. Well, Justin Bieber’s resistance of arrest, DUI, and illegal racing is that chance for the young, morally-developing of our society to get off that bandwagon before it leads to much worse. Think of Bieber’s recent media exposure as an investment in this country’s future. If that indeed is true, Ukraine can wait, and Bieber, who suddenly appears much more relevant to our country, can have his fair share of front page news. Plus, I know you’re dying to have a reason to hate him besides the now-trite insult of him having such a high-pitched, indicative-of-not-yet-having-reached-puberty voice. America in its historic and geographic isolation is understandably distanced from international issues. For centuries, we were dismissed by European society as backwards, later we became imperialistic and thought the same of the nations we dominated, and after WWII, as we were launched to prominence as a super power, we had no reason to not think of ourselves as the best. And that’s where we left off in our heads, as the undeniably best in the world. In fact, among 25 nations to administer a math exam to their high schoolers, US students placed first in confidence in their math abilities against other nations, yet scored last in actual performance on the math exam. If it’s a foreign country, and it doesn’t make Nutella, it’s not worth noting. Even with internet shortening distances remarkably, many Americans still feel separated from the rest of the world. We’re not Switzerland to care what France or Germany or Italy do. America is rather a giant landmass, with few of its citizens close to other nations geographically or mentally: Mexico, for example, is separated by walls and fences and a vastly different socio-economic climate so that we can believe we have little commonality with our southern neighbor. And the ponds on either side create much the same effect for the contiguous US, which means that the masses aren’t very interested in Ukraine until violence reaches apocalyptic proportions to resemble an action movie featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger. But it’s not just the citizens who feel that way. Look at our elected officials: Obama didn’t issue a statement until Ukraine was waste deep in political pandemonium and accepting a $15 billion loan from Russia- an obvious distancing from the West. Although Justin Bieber is Canadian, he’s right here at home, in sight and in mind. So there it is: our media, the monster we have created. Understand. Don’t insult it. And if you want better stories, the materials are out there. The New York Times has more information on Ukraine than on Justin Bieber. The information is all in what we choose to read, watch, or listen. Media is a singular, but its sources are plural. And don’t forget, Facebook is a media too, a rather democratic one in which we choose what it displays (which makes me wonder why so many are complaining of not hearing any serious reporting while incessantly sharing Vine videos). If you don’t like the media, change it. You have that power. In all this, my audience is mostly my peers, some of them. I don’t speak to everyone, nor for everyone, but I do suggest the following to everyone. Although the state of current media is lamentable, we are not justified to be bad doctors diagnosing and complaining without remedying. So let’s do something about it. What if every week we made it our mission to involve ourselves in one topic, current or otherwise, read two or three articles on it- however many it takes to familiarize ourselves with it- and share it with at least three friends? It is your mission and you can vary it as you like. Instead of once a week, you could choose once every two weeks. Instead of three friends, you could choose two. Instead of verbally sharing, you could write a short Facebook post (unlike mine). You choose how far you want to delve into your subject, and how serious your subject is: anything from elephant jokes (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_joke), to the social implications of the 3D printing of guns, to biological phenomena is fair game. The main point for everyone here is to share. The purpose is to change the media by being the media. And I promise that by the end, you and who you share with will be better people for it. *Should you decide to take me up on that offer, share what youre doing with you friends. Theyll keep you committed and excited about continuing. Thanks to all who took the time to read.
Posted on: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 03:43:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015