I think we need to establish some broadcasting rules around Christmas. Things like:
- If a story is going to be run within the first say... 20 minutes of the news, and includes the words "Christmas" and "Business", the story should be removed. Why is the emphasis around Christmas around sales figures? Should we really care?
- If the story generates the same reaction from people as shows like "America's Funniest Home Videos", "The Zoo" or "Wipeout" then the story should be removed (and shifted to say... Campbell Live or whatever).
Broadcasting standards my butt...
What's got me so irritated? Besides me being a little grumpy because I've put myself on a diet, 3 News decided to put on a story about people buying presents for their pets.
Firstly, can we just get over the whole Christmas thing? Calling it Solstice (and holding it a couple of days earlier - on solstice...) is a hell of a lot more inclusive. Just about every culture has some sort of way to celebrate solstice.
Secondly, this story was put on BEFORE the propaganda piece about guns in America (it being true makes it no less propaganda - i.e. if an issue has existed for a long time but the media only just starts reporting on it, then it can probably be considered propaganda. They're pushing for some sort of political message. The debate and protests on this one is going to be terrible). There was a joke on the last episode of "7 Days" for the year. I paraphrase:
"Personally I like seeing gay men holding hands in West Hollywood because I feel safe. Those are 2 hands that I know aren't holding guns."There's a fair argument to be made around the fact that the guns aren't the problem. The infotainment film "Bowling for Columbine" points out that Canada has more guns per capita than America but significantly lower instances of gun related crimes.
There are a whole lot of things that happen in America that I just don't understand. For example, quota's. "You must have [x] percentage of Jewish staff" etc.
Imagine for a moment that I'm a complete racist. I throw the word Nigger around as part of everyday language. And then suddenly, I'm told I can't say the word Nigger any more. The fact that I don't use the term doesn't make me any less of a racist, just as the use of the term doesn't necessarily make me a racist. So all we've really done is attempt to hide racism. Getting rid of the term doesn't get rid of the problem. Personally, I think the distinguishing factor is the intent behind the words.
So guns aren't the problem - it's the intent behind the guns. Funnily enough, while generally I think that toughening gun laws is a good thing, I'm sceptical as to whether it'll have any real effect on gun related crime. It has the feel of closing the gates after the horses have bolted.
We need to find the reason people are willing to shoot other people. I suspect it's to do with Capitalism. Capitalism is kind of Nationalism on an individual scale. Rather than a "them" and "us" mentality that enabled things like the mass murder of Jewish people during World War II, the kind of rampant capitalism practised in the States has a kind of "Me and Them" mentality that enables people to be dismissive of the less privileged because it'll cost them a little more in taxes.
If it's all about money, and we'll only care for those pesky under classes if it doesn't cost us, it's not too hard a stretch to sete how shooting someone given that they're not the same as me... Likewise, from the other point of view, it could be considered reasonable to threaten someone's life in order to acquire money - on the condition that others are dismissive of those people due to capitalist ideals.
Look! Lots to talk about there! So why the damn puff pieces TV3? Most of us watching the news do so in the hopes that we might learn something of what's going on around the world... By reporting mostly puff pieces and only a few international stories, there's a them and an us. We, the great uninformed and them, the others - who we know little about...