I have always been an avid reader of newspapers and magazines, and I seldom fail to watch the six o'clock news. If you're anything like me you've noticed by now a trend in the media ever since the finance world disaster descended on us last September to be consistantly downbeat. It's all doom and gloom. An article in the business section of the newspaper today had a headline stating that Christmas sales figures were down dramatically. On reading the article I learned that they were down only nine-tenths of a percent on last year. Regardless of what economic data is released by the various government agencies responsible for such things, the media report it as bad news.
When the press make pessimistic predictions that don't pan out, rarely will they revisit them or explain why they were wrong. And when data is reported that is better than expected, the press will often downplay it by suggesting that the numbers are preliminary but could be revised lower later. When such revisions actually improve the picture, this too is largely ignored. Some news presenters have a gleam in their eye when they report the latest unemployment statistics or finance company collapses. Maybe i'm imaging that last part, but I could swear i've seen it happen.
The question is, why? Anecdotal evidence in my neck of the woods seems to indicate that things aren't nearly as bad as the media would have us believe. I have an online business that is down somewhat but continues to thrive. I don't know anyone who's had to sell their house through lack of ability to pay the mortgage, nor do I know anyone who's been laid off from their job. Finding a parking place at the mall is an exercise in futility because the mall is jammed.
So where is the horrible downturn we're constantly told we're undergoing? My wife works in a government department of over a hundred people, and she reports that none of them have been affected by all this, nor has anyone that they know. Same with friends. Nothing. So again, why does the media constantly hammer us with doom and gloom? What's in it for them? Some quick research reveals that the answer is that advertising revenue rises faster when they report bad news than it does when they report good. In other words, the media are whores.
I suppose that should come as no surprise. I've often heard it said over the years that bad news spreads like wildfire, good news travels slow. I've also heard it said that more papers get sold when there's a horrific plane crash or an asassination on the front page. Same with the evening news, percentages go up when there's shocking news to report. The horrible wildfires in Victoria, Australia have been dominating the six o'clock news for days now, the first night there was an hour and half of coverage devoted to it, to the exclusion of all else. I have a name for this sort of behaviour. I call it media porn. The urge to stick a microphone in the face of some poor victim is more than a tv news reporter can resist.
If we step outside the picture for a moment this behaviour seems vile and disgusting at best, and yet, would they be doing it if there was mass outrage? Are they simply pandering to the lowest common denominator? Do people really get off on schadenfreude? I suppose the answer is yes, and yet I can't help thinking that they have some moral obligation not to indulge our baser instincts.
The fact that they don't brings us back to the reason for the economic collapse in the first place. Greed. The quest for revenue put before common decency. Still, I have to wonder if the media aren't playing a dangerous game in terms of their own well-being. What happens if they succeed in convincing everyone that it's all hopeless and people really do stop spending and give up and complete economic collapse ensues? Won't people stop buying their sponsers products?
Is it all just a farce then? Or will they discover too late that they've convinced us to be the lemmings pictured above? Me, i'll be the one with the life preserver, thanks just the same.
