Ranting and raving

Greetings and toast everyone. Bodie Ashton is back in the land of the living (ie. not the Bodie Mansion, where the phone line has gone belly-up), and I'm in the mood to rant. However, this one's a little different than the last few times. This time, I'm wanting to refer to my most recent Casbah post about heroes and heroism, or specifically, the response I received from that. I'm over the moon that there were some twelve comments to that post. It's good to know that my posts end up doing what I want them to do: provoke thought and lively discussion. After all, this is what the Couch Casbah is here for: it's a public forum for the airing of ideas and opinions. But I'd like to focus, and if necessary, rebut some comments left on the post. Let's start off with the most critical of my original post: Stephanie: "Your appraisal of the mass-media reflects little understanding of journalistic practice in contemporary culture. In perhaps puerile terms, the journalist is a storyteller- and an inherent feature of every narrative is the existence of heroes and villains. Your post suggests that the very nature of heroism has been corrupted by opportunistic agents of an elusive and ill-defined 'free printmedia', and that we, an easily led public, blindy accept this 'trivialised' and diluted definition of true bravery. It's simply untrue." [...] "You are no more qualified to determine what constitutes heroism than any other person. We all have heroes and idols. Just because they don't save lives, or place themselves in physical danger, does not render them any less heroic. The father who labours from 7am-7pm, in order to provide for his family, is a kind of hero. The unfortunate soldier charged with thankless latrine duties, who works in abhorrent conditions under enemy fire, is a hero. The passengers of an ill-fated helicopter journey, scheduled to deliver aid in the devasted Aceh region, are also heroes, having placed themselves at risk, (which you duly acknowledged) in order to assist the less fortunate. An unwell man, held captive by violent and irrational extremists, for political purposes with which he is not involved, demonstrated poise and courage in a period of exceptional adversity. In emerging from this ordeal (relatively) unscathed, even Douglas Wood, he of ostensibly suspicious financial motives, is a kind of hero." First of all, I believe your idea of what a journalist is leaves a bit to be desired...and yes, I am well aware that you are studying journalism. But that doesn't make you a recognised expert on the subject. I study history. I am not an historian, and I do not believe I am, at this point in time, able to claim that I have superior and intimate knowledge of the historian's work, simply because it's what I study. Why do I not like your opinion of journalism, Stephanie? Quite simply, because it is not the obligation of the journalist to craft a story within which one can find virtue, tyranny, and the battle of good versus evil. Rather, the journalist has the obligation to report events, circumstances and situations as objectively as possible, in order to provide information to the public. Yes, there is always some form of subjectivity, but that should be acknowledged so that the public can create their own informed opinions on a variety of subjects. This is the ideal, this is what all journalists should strive for. If they want to make heroes and villains, they have no right peddling their wares as they do, as informative tomes. Furthermore, the public is easily led and blind to reason in these instances, if you will forgive the generalisation. This is the reason why such things as propaganda exist: because they are successful, because given enough prompting the public will blindly follow anything that sounds like it has any foundations in authority and reason. The media is one of these authorities. We rely on the mass media to provide us with information about the outside world; they are, if you'll forgive the hackneyed analogy, the eyes and ears of our society. Unfortunately, it seems that the media wears colour-shaded glasses and has selective hearing... It then seems odd that you, as a student of journalism, can then deny the very reason journalism and the media exist; as I stated earlier, the media is there so we can craft our own opinions. Yet you seem to think that I have no right to my opinion that Douglas Wood, Ted Smout, and indeed many others, do not deserve the title of hero or idol. If it were indeed the case that opinions should be censored, as you evidently believe by saying that I have no right to opine, then I should surely have deleted your comment, because I don't believe you to be right. But I wouldn't want to do that. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I'm just disagreeing with you, as I have a right to. I have further problems with your comment, but I don't want it to seem like I'm just dismissing your opinion out of hand. Certainly not. It's well thought out. The fact that I've bothered to respond indicates this. Jacob: "The only argument i can possibly add as a counter(well, sorta) argument to bodie's rant, is that the journalists are too dimwitted to find a more appropriate word for someone that 'got into a difficult situation but escaped somehow' or had an unfortunate accident befall them." As our good friend Stephanie indicated beforehand, the media provides what the public wants. While, as I have already stated, the obligation of the journalists lies with objectively presenting information, there is equally no doubt that stories are embellished, detailed avoided, others exaggerated, in order to create something for which we will buy newspapers and watch television. After all, what evokes more emotive images than the word 'hero'? One's mind turns to a swashbuckling character, Zorro-like, going through great adversity for their fellow man with naught but a gleaming smile and a kind word or two. Then we realise that this 'hero' is an odious expatriate who went to another country to exploit the impoverished masses and make money, got caught by militants, got rescued and now makes even more money from the whole episode. Sure, we feel let down. But we still spent money and time reading and watching, and that's all that matters. So yes, it may seem that the journalists are too dim-witted to find another word to use, but in actual fact they are being shrewd and devious, and it is in fact we, the lay public, who are dim-witted for constantly getting sucked in by their promises of a 'real' hero. Stephanie: "Thank Christ there was not a shred of academic rationale in your comment, Jacob." To be perfectly honest, Stephanie, my original post didn't have any academic rationale. But that doesn't make it any less correct in my view or, indeed, in other people's views. In a similar fashion, I like Eskimo Joe. You think they're boring. There's no academic merit to either opinion, but they are both as correct as each other. Jacob: "i came here to rant steph, not write a fucked up english essay. who needs academics when the plain truth and sheer annoyance with the world of news "medium" (are you happy jason?!)can get the message across without having to stoop so low as to use or need "academic rationale". waste someone elses time with your argumentative bullshit and bullying. your not always right, and the argument you posted is proof. GOOD DAY!!" Angus: "To Stephanie: Note the Casbah's slogan (at time of publishing)of "In Rant We Trust". That's RANT, not REASONED ACADEMIC DEBATE. To Jacob: Stephanie is invoking her God because if you made a decent academic argument she would be forced to defend her point from your roguish desecration and drag this unseemly debate further" To both Angus and Jacob, there's nothing wrong with being academic in one's assertions. I disagree with the claim that an argument is invalid just because it is not necessarily academic (see above), but so too do I disagree with the assertion that a rant cannot be academic in any way, shape or form. Juan's post on the market economy was a prime example of a good academic rant. Stephanie's original comment is another, and while you and I disagree with her view, it was not a waste of time. You responded to it, and so am I. Obviously, if we're taking the time to reply, we think it worthy of comment. And Angus, the point of my post was to lead to a reasoned debate. There is no point in making a blanket statement if you cannot back it up with some form of evidence. So thanks to everyone for commenting, but don't forget to keep it civil. And last but not least to Jason, in the modern era, 'media' is referred to as singular, and correct or incorrect, I shall adhere to social norms. -The end- (yep, this could have been a News Limited fairy-tale if I wanted it to be...)