The day after one of our high schools had a major fight, I visited the school. As I walked out, a television van passed me heading toward the school; they were looking for the next big fight. When schools have disruptions, the media is like a bee to nector, but often its coverage is shallow and selective.
The research shows there is no causal link between media portrayal of violence and individuals committing violent acts. But the research also shows that violence portrayal can desensitize individuals and trigger violence in those who have a predisposition to commit violent acts.
The research also shows that people, who watch a hefty dose of cop shows, television news, and the like, believe they live in a much more dangerous world. Often the media does not enlighten; it distorts reality. It focuses on violence like a blinding spot light. The light is so intense that it is hard to see just what we are looking at. Everything surrounding the focal point is in total darkness.
Thus the media portrays violence as would a comic book; the individuals involved become two-dimensional characters. We know little about the people involved, the causes of the violence, nor the solutions. We indulge in the “Pop!” and “Bam!” of the moment.
When this comic book portrayal is given to the violence at Mayfair Mall, on the county bus, and in our schools, we take in the visuals of the moment and vow never again to shop at Mayfair Mall, ride the bus, or send our children to a Milwaukee school because we have little understanding of what is going on. The bright spotlight of the media is blinding rather that illuminating the situation.
Too often the media allows itself to be used to distort reality in the worst possible way.
When an administrator at Hamilton High School was attacked, one reader commented on the Journal Sentinel website that perhaps we should just give all the kids guns and let them go after each other. “Time the thin the herd” wrote the commentator. The newspaper ultimately took the comment down, but how many people read that comment and nod in agreement? I was told that paper tries to remove offensive material quickly, but it hard to keep up. Really?
When a performer flips the bird at the Super Bowl, the media apologizes that we saw the gesture. But when a member of the public promotes violence against our children or WTMJ allows for clearly racist material to be posted on its website, Journal Communications shrugs its shoulders and claims free speech. This is the equivalent to shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater because it causes people to react in irrational ways and ultimately others get hurt. What is more offensive to this community, a gesture at the Super Bowl or the trash local media allows on its websites? These are your websites; clean up the trash.
I’m not asking that the media cover school violence less; I want it to cover school violence more. I want the media to go deeper, to look into the shadows, to illuminate the entire area including school policies, poverty, dysfunctional families, the court system, and the role of the media itself. The media has a responsibility to this community and too often it is doing a lousy job.
I know that the media will claim that it has covered all these topics, but it does it in a disjointed way, rarely connecting the violence of the moment to the larger issues. The media has to be more than the Roman Circus.
