Is it just me, or has the word “responsibility” all but disappeared from the American lexicon? Lately it seems no matter what someone does, no matter how heinous an act, it’s always someone else’s fault. Am I alone in noticing this and thinking it’s somehow . . . I don’t know . . . un-American?
Our democracy was built on a basic, fundamental belief, that every person is responsible for their own lives, their own actions. Our founding fathers believed that actions defined every human being, not race, not religion, not a pedigreed bloodline. You are the sum of your actions, and will be treated by the government accordingly. We don’t always live up to these high standards, but that’s why they’re the founding fathers, they set a very high bar, one that has set the United States apart from other societies for the relatively short duration of its existence.
This belief formed the bedrock for our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The founders gave us rights beyond those offered any other citizens on earth, based on the belief that U.S. citizens would always (or at least generally) exercise those rights in a responsible manner. That’s the full contract, the quid-pro-quo. We are accorded certain rights but we’re expected to exercise them responsibly.
But there’s the problem, isn’t it. We no longer like even the word “responsibility” much less the concept behind it. We’re like a little kid whose Mom says he can play after he does his homework, and then catches him on his gameboy five minutes later. Mom’s statement was conditional, he could play AFTER finishing his homework, but little kids like to grasp onto the parts of those conditional statements they like while ignoring the parts they don’t. This isn’t normally considered adult behavior as experience teaches us while growing up that this isn’t a defensible position; if you heard the one condition you must have heard the other. Have we, as a society, become children? Seems that way sometimes.
As Americans we have some incredible rights, free speech, free press, free religion, and the right to bear arms to name but a few. And while the current media frenzy over the latter has undeniably sparked this posting, I won’t step far into what is already a very muddy debate. I will say, as a gun-owner (full disclosure), that I have no problem with increased gun control . . . for everyone else. Laugh if you want, but I don’t think this is such a terribly uncommon position. The only other point I’ll make with regard to the ongoing gun debate is simply this, for every young person who chooses to start shooting or killing fellow classmates, there are 14.1 million—with the exact same right to bear (and attain) arms—who choose not to do so. Who bears responsibility for the evil done by these extreme statistical outliers? Is it society? Video game designers? The government? Their parents? This is worth considering.
But to be honest, I’m not terribly concerned with abuses of our right to bear arms. I’m far more concerned with abuses of our freedom of the press that currently plague our nation, routinely turning debate into conflict, and discussion into ignorant exchanges of hate-filled rhetoric.
Back when the core documents of our government were written, “Freedom of the Press” meant newspapers, and very few of those indeed. The average reach wasn’t terribly far, frankly, and so a given publication could really only affect a few people. As in real-estate, of course, location is everything, and if you’re printing in Boston in 1773 you have the ability to only really affect things in Boston. Still, you’re not reaching the cities and towns of Georgia or even Virginia.
In the 1880s radio brought the first real leap forward in the sense of being able to rapidly reach a large audience with breaking news stories, ending the centuries-old reign of newsprint as king of media. Radio allowed broadcasts across great distances, even over otherwise tightly-controlled borders, and as the number of personal radio receivers grew, so too did the audience. Still, as with newspapers, the transmission of news—of information—came through the reading of prose. Radio news was, in effect, merely a more reactive newspaper read aloud to a large audience.
In the 1950s television brought the next great step in our media evolution. Televised news brought with it one of the most powerful tools available to human beings, images. The old axiom “a picture is worth a thousand words” might perhaps be the mother of all understatements and the advantages of televised news over paper or radio media became instantly apparent to all. The rapid increase in the number of television news outlets then should have come as no surprise to anyone. Broadcasts cost money which advertisers were all too willing to provide, and news became really big business.
Still, the 1982 invention of 24-hour news coverage seemed wonderful to most Americans, tired of waiting for the twice-a-day news updates to catch up on what was happening across the country and around the world. Unforeseen at that time, I think, was an understanding of just what it meant to have a news service broadcasting all day every day . . . sometimes there just isn’t that much to report. And so cable news channels got inventive and found ways to keep the audience watching, eventually realizing what we all instinctively know; there’s no shortage of opinion in the world. Thus began the ugly slide from reporting news to passing opinion as news, a trend that only accelerated with the next step in media evolution.
Finally—though I dare to suggest that even more invasive forms of media will someday assault our senses and personal spaces—came the internet. All but ubiquitous virtually anywhere in the world (unless you live some place like North Korea), the internet developed to allow instant communication with virtually anybody anywhere on the planet. Interestingly this gave birth to an entire new class of crime committed in cyberspace that ultimately may be far more wide-ranging in effect than any “old school” crime committed in person. The consequent development of personal, on-the-body computer systems called smart phones, gave full range to the potential of the internet leaving us all connected all the time, whether we want to be or not. Damn you Al Gore!
So now, while we debate whether or not the current state of gun ownership would have been acceptable to our founding fathers, we should probably be paying more attention to what they would have thought about the media in its current form. We’ve placed limitations on all the rights mentioned above except for freedom of the press. We require background checks to buy guns, forbid people from yelling “Fire!” in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire, and periodically ensure churches are what they claim to be. Yet there are no real checks on freedom of the press, and it seems technology has finally made a case for why that might be necessary.
Again, should the members of the press exercise their right responsibly (there’s that nasty little word again) this wouldn’t even be a topic for discussion. But recent history has made a very strong case, I think, for some type of reining-in of a press corps gone absolutely berserk. The press now routinely passes off erroneous or, far more concerning, intentionally false information as truth, and there seem to be few repercussions for doing so. A free press was once thought to be the watchdog of democracy, but the dog has started to nip at its owner, and our inaction only encourages it to bite deeper each time.
While people easily dismiss a blog (as they should—mine being no exception as it represents only my opinion and that of those few who add comments), they still seem to give credence to formal media outlets. It’s as if posting a banner with one’s name and position (often inflated or even invented) beneath a talking head creates the illusion of credibility. And yet, these organizations are increasingly engaging in the very politics they are supposed to be reporting on with the inevitable result of a public that can no longer tell the difference between fact and opinion.
Since the media has essentially refused to self-regulate, maybe it’s time for external regulation. It probably shouldn’t be the government, for that would eliminate the whole reason for having a free press in the first place. But a body or institution needs to take on this role; formally certifying members of the press, investigating and punishing those who fail or refuse to report in a responsible manner, and withdrawing that accreditation for repeated or flagrant infractions.
The pen is indeed mightier than the sword, and media irresponsibility causes lives to be ruined, communities to suffer, and opens up our society to attack by other nations and organizations. While we spend much time and energy worrying about the sword, might I suggest we take a moment to contemplate what is, ultimately I think, the far greater danger to our society posed by an irresponsibly wielded pen.
We do in fact need our citizens to more responsibly wield their Constitutional right to bear arms. We have an even greater need for our press to responsibly report the news. The Constitution allows me to defend myself against abuses of the former. What defense do we have against the press? Shouldn't we hold them responsible for their reporting? It might just be time to consider putting our watchdog on a leash.
M. G. Haynes