I’ve been reading again. This time about the evolution of media and it’s role in society.
One of the points made by the author regarded the Rwandan genocide in 1994. They state that elements within the government used some local media to incite violence. So far, so good. The article goes on to say that Radio Mille Collines incited the violence that lead to genocide. The author then asks, “Could this happen again? Or will media take this opportunity to meet it’s obligation to inform and educate about our global interdependence?”
Excuse me, did you really say that?
This entire issue is one of diminishing of personal responsibility. First we have “elements of the government”. It’s a little vague, okay we’re still using obvious human references. The line about the radio station inciting violence, sort of, but not so much. Radio stations in my experience are buildings containing offices, studios, content and other broadcast related goodness, but not a trace of sentience. To do any high-end inciting, you need sentience, and for that you need people. People to spew information, disinformation, propaganda and just plain naked hatred. Radio Milles Collines was just a radio station. It was the people in front of the microphones who incited the violence.
Which brings us to his question about “media”. The problem of course is that media is not a discreet entity. Media is a generic descriptor so vague as to be utterly useless in this context. As a non-entity, questions of obligations become moot. The entire concept is just one more excuse for the devaluation of individual motive. If one is involved with anything which might be covered by the umbrella term media, they apparently need to start proselytizing about global interconnectedness. Right now. Not necessarily because they care about it, but because some random other has decreed an obligation.
This is manifestly (phrase breaches profanity policy for this Blog) umm, wrong. So very wrong on so many levels.
Use of media carries no inherent obligation. The content is at the sole discretion of the person creating and distributing it. If you feel that a particular message should be paramount (ie. global interconnectedness) then it’s up to you as an individual to convince other individuals to follow your lead.
In the long run, you don’t need media in any of it’s guises to incite a genocidal mob. All you need for that is people. That’s really what is at stake here. We all want to believe that it’s about the government, the radio station, the media, but not about the people. Because if it can be about the people who crafted the message that incited a genocidal rage in average Rwandans, then it is about all people. It is about us, and no one wants to admit to that part of themselves. It’s so much easier to put all that on a generic, non-entity like Media.
Cheers, Winston
Share Your Thoughts