We Get the News We Ask For

Sick of the same old stuff on the news?  Admit it, most of what we see or read, even from so-called serious news sources, is pretty lightweight.  We get fluff about celebrities:  who got married, who got divorced, what Pippa was seen wearing.  We find celebrity gossip attractive because the alternative is bad news.  Who wants to come home from a hard day at work to hear stories about gruesome murders, destructive weather events, economic problems, or civil wars and suicide bombings in foreign countries?

We get results of surveys telling us what we are worried about now and what we should worry about next.  For example, earlier this year they told us that the “strife between rich and poor people is now seen as a bigger issue than other social conflicts, including conflict between immigrants and native-born Americans and tension between black and white Americans” not because of some major shift in attitudes, but because we kept hearing about it, specifically news coverage of the Occupy movement.  As that has run its course, our biggest concern moves on to something new.

Instead of covering hard news in depth, the media use emotion-laden words such as strife, crisis, epidemic and conflict to get our attention.  Pictures and videos emphasize the fear and destruction.  At the fires and floods, instead of telling us the extent of the damage or other “boring” statistics, they interview victims – “How did you feel when your house blew away?”  The human interest touches us deeply and keeps us tuning in, rather than giving us any concrete information.  We come away feeling anything but confident about the future of America.  Then other surveys tell us that the majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

But the news we get is the news we react to by tuning in or clicking on web pages.  Horror, tragedy, Hollywood gossip, cute stories about bears roaming in subdivisions, all the gory details of the Cruise/Holmes divorce and the latest amateur video gone viral are what catch our attention.  We see them over and over, not only on the lightweight magazine-type programs, but also the national news.  Serious, thoughtful reporting is rare.

Networks choose their stories, redo their sets and shuffle or fire their presenters based on appearance and popularity.  Can’t we understand how superficial this is?  Can’t we recognize how the lack of depth in the news reflects our reactions based on our lack of perspective, allowing the superficial to crowd out the substantive?  Everyone in the media caters to our wishes as shown by how we spend our time and our money.  We get exactly what we ask for, and what we are getting today tells us more about ourselves than about what's going on in the world.

Change

Years ago the smart folks at Harvard put together a change model.  They pointed out that change happens only when there is sufficient discomfort with the status quo (to motivate a change), a clear model or vision (what you want to change to) and a practical plan to get there.  These requirements are multiplicative (DxMxP), which simply means that if any of the three factors equals zero there will be no change.

It worked well for the moon landing.  We were embarrassed by the Russians putting the first man in space and dissatisfied with the situation.  President Kennedy set the vision of sending a man to the moon (and returning safely).  NASA put together the plan walking through the necessary steps:  the Mercury program (one man in space and then in orbit), Gemini (two astronauts in orbit) and Apollo (three in a capsule eventually landing on the moon and safely returning).  All along the way and by design, NASA enhanced and broadened their capabilities.  The desired change, from Russian to American domination of space exploration, happened.

Now consider the Occupy movement in terms of DxMxP.  There is definitely dissatisfaction, a discomfort shared by many.  We feel taken advantage of by the dishonesty, greed and manipulation characteristic of some big bankers and financial executives.  (Whether that is the primary or only complaint is unclear.)  What’s the vision?  What do we want instead?  Is it a nation where those bankers and executives are forced to conduct business honestly and fairy, or one where everyone gets the same share of the pie regardless of effort, talent or contribution?  Can there be a practical plan when the desired outcome is unclear?  Remember, when any of the three factors equals zero, there will be no change.  Constructive change requires much more than camping in parks.  It also requires a specific vision and a plan to get there.

Occupy?

What’s with these Wall Street protests?

Is it a failure of Critical Thinking – a protest against the fact that life is not fair, with no one able to agree on the definition of success or fairness?

Is it a failure of Perspective – able to afford to take the time and make the trip to participate in a gathering that was organized via computers and smart phones, not grateful for what they have, but jealous because they don’t have as much as someone else?

Is it a failure of Responsibility – unhappy with circumstances but marching to demand that someone else fix the situation?

Perhaps it’s a combination.  Just who are these 1% people they are protesting against, anyway?  When they are nameless, faceless entities characterized as Wall Street fat cats, it’s easy to demonize them as evil, greedy and deserving to be singled out and punished for being rich.  According to this CNN article and other sources though, only about 14% fall into the financial category, Wall Street types; and I’m sure not all of them are evil and greedy.  The top 1% also includes people like Peyton Manning, Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga, Tiger Woods, Justin Bieber, Leonardo Dicaprio, Eminem, Kobe Bryant, Dr. Phil, Steven Spielberg, Katie Couric, Larry the Cable Guy and many other favorites from sports and entertainment.  I don’t think the animosity against the rich extends to this group.  If you resent the fact that they are rich, stop buying their music, watching the games, and going to the movies.  Look at the Forbes list of richest Americans.  Most of them got there by providing us with products or services that we gladly paid for.


These people aren't necessarily evil.  They are just a lot better than you and me at figuring out ways to make money,  but of course, that's not fair!