After all these years, I still hate Media Burn......

[poltr1]

Earlier this week, a third-rate news station in town (in my not-so-humble opinion) did a half-assed job in reporting about the local pagan community. I didn't see either of the two-part story, but a lot of my colleagues did. The owner of a local pagan bookshop was interviewed, and her words were apparently (or allgedly) twisted in the editing room. The shop's owner is now pursuing legal action.

If the reporter was truly interested in enlightening his viewers, and not perpetuating the stereotype that witches are evil and worship Satan, then he would have taken the time to do the story right. Several people who wrote to the station, and to the reporter. The reporter's response: "Are Satanists Pagan?"

I should mention that the station is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, one known for espousing neo-conservative views.

Of course, pagans aren't the only ones who get short shrift in the press. If they were to cover a science-fiction convention, they'd focus on the pointed-ear-wearing, Vulcan saluting "Trekkies". Or for a college fraternity, they'll portray them as drunken frat boys a la "Animal House".

Old stereotypes die hard, and the only way to change them is Educate. Educate. Educate. But if the media's not interested in changing their views, then it seems to be a moot point.

Comments

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

The public and the media (at least the management of the media) have both come to accept without really questioning that the purpose of "news" programming is to entertain, titillate, and stir up controversy, not to actually inform. If the media landscape was dominated by small independent outlets in genuine competetion, there would still be bad stories and bad outlets, but these days, when giving competent, dedicated reporters the time to discover and report actual news is considered a waste of money compared to covering who's sleeping with whom in Hollywood, who's winning in big-money sports, and (to the extent they tell us about current events at all) talking about what they're saying on the channel next door, not about the actual events, nobody thinks there's a market for journalism. If an independent outfit actually becomes successful with real journalism, they'll be bought up by a big company who will "restructure to reduce costs" and stop wasting profits on those journalists. Basically, it's inevitable that the only coverage of small fringe groups is going to be of the "look at the freaky people (we must all be frightened)" variety.

This is not much comfort if you or your friends are members of a small fringe group. I personally get it regularly from the reporters who report on people who own exotic cats using some PETA brochure they were mailed as the source of the background facts. It has become so standard for media interviews to be twisted in the editing room so what is broadcast is the opposite of what the interviewee said that most exotic owners will not talk to the media at all; of course, this leaves the media with no sources at all to counter the AR agenda. I'm sure that the pagans are in exactly the same boat: the stereotype, inflamed by a few extremists, is that they're crazy people and a danger to society, and any time one of them actually talks to the media to try to correct the stereotype, their words get turned against them and they're likely to be the target of terrorism.