Does the media rule ok?
Updated: Apr 23, 2020
The media seems to be losing its grip or does what I believe depend more on my personality?
Well up until recently the answer might be a resounding yes. And many people were amazed at how sensitive people in power were to media coverage. They are surprised at how deliberately predacious the Press could be by way of hounding them through negative stories or subliminal innuendoes. And the recent events where many sectors have been caught out have now provoked deeper and philosophical debate on the boundaries and interpretation of human rights and freedom of the press.
But a fascinating addendum to all this is the fact that how we engage or interact with the media is dependent on your personality. If you study the 4 personality types in
The Psychology of Career Planning then we can say if you are an Influencer, you will enjoy sensationalism and the big story, whatever its source. The Supporter will engage with the people-centric coverage, such as celebrity gossip. The Analyst will be cynical of hype and only credit researched outcomes which is similar to the Creative but only where the outcome adds a new interpretation and dimension to the subject.
The media dominance is due to an overplayed dictum. They will over-justify their creative, literary or broadcasting skills through the vacuous cliché of, “Well, that’s what they want to hear.” And too often we don’t challenge this rather naïve observation that, over the years, has almost created a scenario of self-righteous, moral obligation. In other words, “That’s what the punters want and therefore that’s what I must give them; and by the way I know best.”
And then if we look at the punters’ side, well, most of my friends don’t read or are reading fewer newspapers. Circulation has crashed. Viewing and listening audiences have and are rapidly decreasing. And have you ever thought of how the media actually know or can measure the extent of their audience? You may find that another surprise and in the same substantive category as “…that’s what the punters want.”
So the media is ruling less, we can say. Ok but even its current elevated status is partly because of an entrenched and naïve conviction. It still beggars belief that some viewers, listeners and readers will automatically defend the status of the media on the basis that “….surely they could not have just made it all up” or “…there’s never smoke without fire. There must be a grain of truth in it.”
Fake news has also added another dimension to the credibility criteria of what is reported.
The public are now more informed and judgemental. This creates a challenge for the conventional medium such as TV newspapers and radio which are still still focused on hype and sensationalism which replicates a clickbait mentality.
I think this is an outdated approach and the main reason for there constant diminishing audience as todays audience public is more informed.
For hype substitute balance discussion and debate and reputations would be elevated as a credible and interesting source of news