Vegans and Terrorism
What is terrorism? "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."
What is terror? "a violent or destructive act."
A 6-week old girl died recently because of her (and her parents') vegan diet. Depending on how you look at it, the incident as reported was:
1. a ratcheting up of the 'threat level' that ignorant pose to America.
2. an act of terror by the parents, for which their convictions of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and cruelty were justified.
Whether or not the parents knew about the damage a vegan diet could do to a baby, their decisions led to its death. They did something that terrorized and killed this Atlanta boy.
But to the extent that this story was blown up... I mean the New York Times published an op-ed on it... this is an act of the right wing's effort to terrorize the nation (read the media labels: liberal, poor, minorities).
Do you agree that the media plays a part in escalating our feelings of terror in our culture? How can we have a full conversation about nutrition when so few truly comprehensive mediums exist for communicating to people ecologically and nutritionally safe habits?
8 comments:
The media definitely plays a part in escalating our feelings. The majority of people only hear what the mainstream media want us to hear. I know this because I am one of them.
Right now, according to the mainstream media, there is a war in Iraq, but there are no soldiers in Afganistan. On days when something relatively minute happens in America, the bombings and deaths of soldiers go unreported.
It's sad that the news reported is driven in the same way that TV sitcoms are - to bring in ratings. News stations, in my opinion, should rely news to people and allow them to make their own decisions...not spin stories to play certain ways for their sponsors or political backers.
Ben,
I don't disagree with you that "the media" (I hate that term -- what media? And is it plural or singular?) works to spread fear. Fear sells. And I agree that this fits in with the "your neighbor is the next Osama" platform.
But this article has very little to do with that. The author attempts to prove, convincingly I may add, that strict veganism could hurt a small child. I have mixed feelings about prosecutig the vegans, but the article seems pretty even-handed.
In conclusion, Lybia is a land of contrast.
I am with the Snausage. Is the word terror even mentioned here or are you saying that it is implied? I extol you for taking on sensationlism in today's media world, but it seems like you are going out of your way to force connections that aren't there. If you are using your own small media outlet to do it, aren't you doing the same thing they are?
And isn't the NYTimes considered one of the most "fair and balanced" newspapers for liberals? If I run for government I think my "veggies don't kill babies, hippies kill babies" platform will cross party lines.
ben, you're right about me playing off the 'terror as bringing in readership' ploy that i claim to be opposing. hope that doesn't bring down the legitimacy of my blog... lol
and, snausy you were right to say that the content of the article doesn't play on the 'terrorist' fears of Americans. but let's not forget that article/issue selection is itself a major part of the media's slant.
are there not thousands dying in sudan? when was the last time one of our friends linked to a NYT op-ed on Darfur? not recent enough relative to the number of people affected. and that's one of my major messages against the media (especially here in Hollywood).
ed, do you mean you're part of the media or that you're of many who only get their news/information from major media?
yes, I agree. (that is - with the thought processes that are posted here and people stopping to think about these different ways of viewing life).
And by the way, that pix below is freakin INCREDIBLE!
It doesn't lower your legitimacy, but you are letting the terrorists win.
i mean that i don't really read the news or watch the news, so all i see are the headlines. i don't pay attention to it because my opinion is that the are reporting what sells...to me, the news is not meant to be in ratings wars. the news is meant to inform...be it about positive or negative things...but it is there for you to have an understanding of the culture around you. but as it stands now, it's about liberals vs. right wingers.
why can't it be about the bear that get shot with a trank gun and fell onto a trampoline? or about what is happening in afganistan since america turned its focus on iraq? or a story on a person who went the the criminal justice system and today is now a mentor to troubled youth?
instead we get stories about celebrities being drunk...or stories about dumb people who do bad things not understanding what they did and now they want their life to go on like nothing happened.
The media in the United States is a joke, and is perceived to be so by the rest of the world.
At the very latest with the gung-ho warmongering by US oficials that was never questioned by American media outlets 4-5 years ago (sure, Al Queda opposes all secular regimes was the message after 9/11.... that's why they collaborated with the most secular regime in the Middle East - Saddam Hussein's Iraq - to face America. The media should never have let that flawed line of reasoning be considered seriously in public for even a minute), the "mainstream" media in the US ceded any remaining independence and balance. No one outside the US trusts US media.
My recommendation is to read sources from as many different countries as possible, because you'll discover issues affecting millions of people every day that never get play in the US.
As for the ratings issue, I'm with you, Ed. It is unreasonable that we expect news to go up against entertainment programming and be competitive for viewers - unless the news is changed/selected in a way that makes it more entertaining - in my opinion, this detracts from the quality of reporting, particularly on complex issues, so that these aren't aired or are glossd over. this is why I am particularly glad that European governments fund their state broadcasters independently of political issues, so that those media outlets can dedicate the means necessary to generate quality news programs, regardless of ratings.
i also have a particular bone to pick with 24 news channels. While news is made 24 hours a day (as in: things happen all over the world), it usually does not happen fast enough to warrant continuous coverage. As a result, rather than delivering a once or twice daily high content dosage of information about current events - commonly known as "news"- these channels are forced to develop a story line of news events that draws viewers in.
Post a Comment