To sum up, in a vacuum facts are meaningless, and only by filling that vacuum with ideas
and concepts can students learn, by gaining useful perspectives and insights about facts. Yet,
since facts are the very stuff from which ideas, concepts, and trends spring, without some facts
students cannot learn much of anything. In the final analysis, then, students should learn facts
right along with concepts, ideas, and trends.
Issue 15
"Unfortunately, the media tend to highlight what is sensational at the moment. Society would
be better served if the media reported or focused more fully on events and trends that will
ultimately have the most long-term significance."
18
The speaker asserts that rather than merely highlighting certain sensational events the
media should provide complete coverage of more important events. While the speaker’s
assertion has merit from a normative standpoint, in the final analysis I find this assertion
indefensible.
Upon first impression the speaker’s claim seems quite compelling, for two reasons. First,
without the benefit of a complete, unfiltered, and balanced account of current events, it is
impossible to develop an informed and intelligent opinion about important social and political
issues and, in turn, to contribute meaningfully to our democratic society, which relies on broad
participation in an ongoing debate about such issues to steer a proper course. The end result
of our being a largely uninformed people is that we relegate the most important decisions to a
handful of legislators, jurists, and executives who may or may not know what is best for us.
Second, by focusing on the "sensational"--by which I take the speaker to mean
comparatively shocking, entertaining, and titillating events which easily catch one’s
attention-the media appeal to our emotions and baser instincts, rather than to our intellect and
reason. Any observant person could list many examples aptly illustrating the trend in this
direction--from trashy talk shows and local news broadcasts to The National Enquixer andPeople Magazine. This trend dearly serves to undermine a society’s collective sensibilities and
renders a society’s members more vulnerable to demagoguery; thus we should all abhor and
resist the trend.
However, for several reasons I find the media’s current trend toward highlights and the
sensational to be justifiable. First, the world is becoming an increasingly eventful place; thus
with each passing year it becomes a more onerous task for the media to attempt full news
coverage. Second, we are becoming an increasingly busy society. The average U.S. worker
spends nearly 60 hours per week at work now; and in most families both spouses work.
Compare this startlingly busy pace to the pace a generation ago, when one bread-winner
worked just over 40 hours per week. We have far less time today for news, so highlights must
suffice. Third, the media does in fact provide full coverage of important events; anyone can find
such coverage beyond their newspaper’s front page, on daily PBS news programs, and on the
Internet. I would wholeheartedly agree with the speaker if the sensational highlights were all
the media were willing or permitted to provide; this scenario would be tantamount to thought
control on a mass scale and would serve to undermine our free society. However, I am aware
of no evidence of any trend in this direction. To the contrary, in my observation the media are
informing us more fully than ever before; we just need to seek out that information.
On balance, then, the speaker’s claim is not defensible. In the final analysis the media
serves its proper function by merely providing what we in a free society demand. Thus any
argument about how the media should or should not behave--regardless of its merits from a
normative standpoint begs the question.
Issue 16
"Public figures such as actors, politicians, and athletes should expect people to be interested
in their private lives. When they seek a public role, they should expect that they will lose at
least some of their privacy."19
This statement is fundamentally correct; public figures should indeed expect to lose their
privacy. After all, we are a society of voyeurs wishing to transform our mundane lives; and one
way to do so is to live vicariously through the experiences of others whose lives appear more
interesting than our own. Moreover, the media recognize this societal foible and exploit it at
every opportunity. Nevertheless, a more accurate statement would draw a distinction between
political figures and other public figures; the former have even less reason than the latter to
expect to be left alone, for the reason that their duty as public servants legitimizes public
scrutiny of their private lives.
The chief reason why I generally agree with the statement is that, for better or worse,
intense media attention to the lives of public figures raises a presumption in the collective mind
of the viewing or reading public that our public figures’ lives are far more interesting than our
own. This presumption is understandable. After all, I think most people would agree that given
the opportunity for even fleeting fame they would embrace it without hesitation. Peering into
the private lives of those who have achieved our dreams allows us to live vicariously through
those lives.
Another reason why I generally agree with the statement has to do with the forces that
motivate the media. For the most part, the media consist of large corporations whose chief
objective is to maximize shareholder profits. In pursuit of that objective the media are simply
giving the public what they demand a voyeuristic look into the private lives of public figures.
One need look no further than a newsstand, local-television news broadcast, or talk show to
find ample evidence that this is so. For better or worse, we love to peer at people on public
pedestals, and we love to watch them fall off. The media know this all too well, and exploit our
obsession at every opportunity.
Nevertheless, the statement should be qualified in that a political figure has less reason to
expect privacy than other public figures. Why? The private affairs of public servants become
our business when those affairs adversely affect our servants’ ability to serve us effectively, or
when our servants betray our trust. For example, several years ago the chancellor of a
university located in my city was expelled from office for misusing university funds to renovate
his posh personal residence. The scandal became front-page news in the campus newspaper,
and prompted a useful system-wide reform. Also consider the Clinton sex scandal, which
sparked a debate about the powers and duties of legal prosecutors vis4-vis the chief executive.