If you are like most people, you probably had a strong initial reaction to the killing of Trayvon Martin. One way or another, taking one side or another, within seconds or minutes, you probably had a strong opinion formed very quickly. As time has gone on and bits and pieces have unfolded about Martin's killing, you may have changed your opinion. Furthermore, you may think, as I do, that the media played a powerful role in trying to influence peoples' opinions on this story and inflame emotions about it.
A central element of this story is the racial distrust that the media has apparently been trying to fan the flames of. Immediately, the racial aspect came up. The media certainly decided to prod at this aspect and took advantage of the story of a "white"(?) man killing a black man (or child?). Using this, exploring the racial aspect must certainly have been good for ratings and sales. But beyond the easy tactics, the media also distorted certain things to heavily influence people to form a certain opinion. (I know how shocking, simply shocking it must be, to hear that the media does such things.)
I had heard or read Zimmerman described as white, latino, and white-latino. I had heard/read that Zimmerman was injured. Other sources said he was not injured, one source I heard saying that a video of Zimmerman in custody showed him having no injuries. Some said Trayvon could be heard yelling on a recording; others said it was Zimmerman. Pictures of Martin shown on the news have reportedly been younger photos of Martin - obviously intended to make certain that Martin is definitely perceived as younger and innocent.
The details became so many and so obscured by media influence that I realized I couldn't form an accurate enough opinion of what happened unless I had witnessed this first-hand. But I realized a parallel that deserved to be written about here.
For readers here, it is no secret how misandrist the media is, and how heavily to one side it leans. In matters of a story involving violence between a man and woman, the man is almost always going to be the "perpetrator" and the woman is almost always going to be the "victim," regardless of facts. Heavy-handed tactics will be used to influence peoples' views of what happened, regardless of what the story is. But some stories are easier to use nefariously than others.
Just as the media desires to fan the flames of distrust between races, the media also desires to fan the flames of distrust between the sexes. Misandry, of course, is a result of that. And the media is very good at creating tension, anger (at only the "appropriate" targets of course), and distrust among groups, especially along racial and gender lines.
Seeing a controversial story unfold in the media, and jumping to conclusions (after having every "fact" fed to you by the media) is tantamount to a fish biting biting the bait. No matter how certain one is of the facts, it's an easy trap to fall into. Forming an opinion based off of media influence is ubiquitous, invasive, and is easily used to influence people to absorb any idea the media desires, at the whims of the media.
The stories may be different, but the aims of the media in feeding them to us in its distorted way remains the same. So the next time a controversial story appears in the news, and you see people getting riled up, angry, and indignant, consider how controlled and scripted it really is.
No comments:
Post a Comment