Tick a box: yes or no?

‘…the accusation can be made that the uncontrolled growth of technology destroys the vital sources of our humanity. It creates a culture without moral foundation. Technology, in sum, is both friend and enemy.” (Postman 1993, p.xii) – From Communication and New Media textbook p.27

Technological advances are vast in almost every aspect of our lives. From the type of music we listen to, and how we listen to it, to the way we communicate with each other. In an age of mp3, mobile phones and satellite, instantaneous response is the order of the day. This is especially prevalent in the world of media news coverage, which is where I would like to lay the focus from Neil Postman’s quote. I learned just minutes ago that Paris Hilton’s jail time could be cut in half. I got this information without asking or caring. It’s all there for me when I log onto the channel nine news webpage www.news.ninemsn.com.au. Technology has allowed an acknowledgment of events never before presented. This can be said of sports coverage, celebrity culture and more in particular warfare coverage. Society’s understanding of global events has changed dramatically over the last one hundred years. The question is, however, are we better or worse off when it comes to the media’s technological growth? Can we trust the information we’re receiving?

The World Cup soccer match was prime news for many parts of the world, all cheering and crying at different times, depending on your team loyalties. www.wldcup.com. This is a vital example of the positives the globalisation of media coverage has brought to society. You didn’t need to be at the game to experience it. Although it is just a sport, it is also a culture. Idealistic perhaps, but the world didn’t seem to be at war during this time. I’m not an entirely sports oriented person, but for that while, everybody was in the spirit of the game. The technology available for allowing this sport coverage to be viewed by such a vast number of people, is a great statement of the advantages we face thanks to live satellite footage.

Celebrity culture has never been so prevalent than it is today. Thanks to the growth of media’s mass distribution and the technology to transfer footage from one side of the world to the other, celebrity privacy is practically non-existent. It’s not just the glossy magazines, it is master blogger’s like Perez Hilton www.perezhilton.com who dedicate their life to tracing the rich and famous and depicting their movements instantly on his site. But the situation with celebrity culture does not stop with just the knowing of celebrity movements, it is the culture part of the term that is slightly unnerving. I only have to look around at my own surroundings to realise its effects. The lighter side is the copy-cat nature of fashion and designer labels, but the emulation of behaviour does require some careful consideration. Society tends to reveal that if a celebrity conducts themselves in a certain way, it makes it somewhat acceptable. From driving under the influence, to engaging in drug use, these are all circumstances which should question the length to which celebrity culture will go in relation to it’s effects on standard society.
During World War One and World War Two, every nation involved used propaganda posters to assist with the recruitment of men (especially Britain in WW1, as it initially had no conscription in place.) "At the front! Every fit Brit should join our brave men at the front. ENLIST NOW!" www.firstworldwar.com The depiction of war was of comradery, bravery and when needed, guilt. Very little was revealed about the devastation of warfare, unless it was required to show how much the men were needed in battle - The National Archives ‘Power of Persuasion’ suggests, “words, posters and films waged constant battle for the hearts…just as surely as military weapons.” Weather it was naivety or ignorance, society was very unaware of the situations their men were being subject to. Government manipulation was certainly part of it, but this happens today. Harvard Professor Joseph Nye sums with, “Get others to want what you want…entice and attract, leading to acquiescence or imitation.” (War and the Media: Reporting Conflict 24/7. 2003 Ch 2 p:31 – 2002:8-9) Much of this was prevalent due to the lack of tools to create alternate avenues of information. Vietnam was the first war to be depicted in the real essence of what war was all about - killing, depravation, death, hunger and anger. As a consequence, riots, petitions and anti war protests were organised to stop the continuation of troops in Vietnam and to bring the already posted back home. (The ‘Uncensored War’: The Media and Vietnam, Daniel C.Hallin p.7) Censorship and editing was, and is, clearly rife in the media, but thanks to satellite and up to date coverage, much more is now known about the events in war.
There are certain pivotal moments in life where everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing. Neil Armstrong landing on the moon www.panoramas.dk.com, the death of Elvis Presley and Princess Diana, the OJ Simpson trial and, for me, the Port Arthur massacre. You know because you were probably doing the same thing each time… watching television or listening to the radio. You were receiving information only minutes old; you became part of the drama. I was witness to United Airlines Flight 175 crash into the south tower of the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11. www.cnn.com I did this while sitting in my lounge room in Hobart, Tasmania. The instantaneous media coverage brought an attack from the other side of the world, right into our homes. Every media outlet had this footage on repeat until you absorbed every detail, the sight of the burning buildings and distressed New Yorkers… and then, without fail, the photo of three Muslim men. America was attacked, and the western world was fearful and angry at the exact moment America was. The event happened, and we knew about it. But we knew about it from the mouths of western media, which brings on a certain amount of discrimination. It is hard to decide if we needed to know the details provided. Media supports power in conflict, and uses it’s tools to sway the population in the same direction. (September 11, Noam Chomsky.2002 Ch 3 p.30) It needs to be noted that although being oblivious to events is not the answer, media sensationalism exists on a large scale, and being oblivious to that is equally destructive.
In summary, technology is escalating rapidly, particularly when it comes to the mass media distribution. From the posters of WW1 and WW2, to the at-the-moment coverage we see on our televisions and computer screens today. Society cannot avoid the technology steam train, but must question its authority and necessity. I feel lucky to have such access to global issues, but I am aware that there is a possibility of both knowing too much and not being told the whole truth. So long as the awareness is prevalent and the media’s intentions are questioned, all we can do is watch technology and media grow and enjoy the ability to connect to a global network unavailable to so many before us.