When I first changed the name of this blog to rumi∞nation, I knew that the niche I wanted to settle my writing self in - one that will constantly be populated by new information and one, ironically, populated also by me, the media - was going to be a journey I'd started long ago, sitting in a college classroom in Erie, PA, exploring what we call language.
What is language, exactly? In the most basest of terms, it is merely an organized uttering of sounds from our vocal cords, or a series of dots and lines bent on the page. But then throw in culture, birthplace, geographical location, accent, and several other variables, and we find that these uttered sounds are both a constant and variable in themselves, the way our parents teach us how to understand those sounds and what they mean, even attaching the visual cue of language with those dots and lines, and making it a cohesive way of understanding, and communicating with, other humans. Yet while language is what binds the human race together, so it also forces us apart, in ways such that the utterances of Arabic are vastly different from those of Mandarin or, if you're from the part of the world I hail from, you'd know that language used by folks in Erie and Pittsburgh set themselves apart from the rest of the Northeast US.
(I understand that there are many other ways of communication with other humans, including nonvisual cues and sign languages, secret handshakes and even Morse code, but my interest is in that of what American media uses, chiefly written and spoken language, that I would like to address here today. As you can see, the concept of language is incredibly complicated, and one that I have only started to explore on my own beginning with my college years. This will not be the last time I return to this subject, so please bear with me as we scratch the surface together.)
The American media, as you have all seen, has used a curious way of manipulating language. I truly believe that, with a First Amendment-protected media, one must not take it all at face value, and understanding that what constitutes "news" in my parents' generation is not the same as it is today. It's a curious phenomenon when I visit my in-laws, when we all sit down and watch the 6 o'clock news in the evening. I realized that since I got married, I didn't watch the news anymore; I went online to get it. I subscribed to the local paper just to get the comics and the movie listings, one of those "just in case" situations, and even then I only got the Sunday paper. With the newspapers and news anchors giving me the information, I found that their choice of language (and, therefore, the news) was not something I was fond of.
My nitpicking of this not only found me to start looking at other sources of news other than the American media, but to also realize that I didn't like a news anchor choosing the words for me. Although I worked for the school newspaper in college, I realized that I was given the utterly huge responsibility of choosing the words to tell a story to the rest of the campus, and that their words to describe it were probably vastly different from mine (notwithstanding the fact that I was bound to AP-type rules and a relatively airtight filter of words I was not allowed to use, as well as keeping the reading to a 5th-grade level.)
Coming from this angle, of one person who has both experienced the media language from outside and within, I took much exception with this
blog entry by a certain Mr. Jack Cafferty of CNN, who seemed quite on the offensive when he found out that Senator Clinton had thrown a swipe at the media, even accusing her of "whining" about the questions delivered on some of her more recent debates. He says: "It's a tactic as old as politics: things aren't going well, blame the media."
Oh, Jack. If only you knew the influence your words have on some people in this country. Sir, you seem to come from a line of thought that you are reporting "just the facts, ma'am." I beg to differ. While the American media is perhaps not directly responsible for Clinton's seemingly downward spiral in this election, you fail to recognize that too many people take your word as unerring fact, even when you willingly write a blog entry that is not based in cold, hard, number-calculating fact. I heartily disagree with your quickness to separate yourself from the huge influence, good or not, on anyone's campaign. What do you and your media cronies choose to report about Senator Clinton? Let's see: CNN has been quick to report any time Clinton sheds a tear or lashes an angry word. Do you wonder if you or your superiors are making this news because, alas, she is merely a woman and her emotions are fair game to the media? Ah, but now look what words I have put into your mouth!
Let's try a different angle, readers: How many of you have taken a gander at the English language version of al Jazeera online? How many of you just gasped right now for me publishing that in this blog? Al Jazeera is not the enemy, folks; you should check it out sometime. BBC is a pretty interesting read, but there's nothing like reading some of the things that our Muslim counterparts are checking out on their own media outlets.
I will admit that I do not publish much from non-American news outlets, but then again, my reading audience is interested in popular media, and a good percentage of them are American. But the byline of this blog states what I am trying to do by calling attention and shedding a much less favorable light on American media: an attempt to discover common sense we lost by exploring popular media. I believe that most of the general American public has lost some of their common sense by swallowing a lot of what is fed to us through the media outlets without so much as a morsel of a question mark with it. I'm not attacking when we report on the number of casualties abroad, for instance; it's folks like Jack Cafferty that, while he does echo some of my sentiments about a broad range of subjects, also perpetrate the myth that the American media indemnifies itself from the influence it has on those constantly in its spotlight. This is the language we are trained to understand, but truly, it's not the only one that we have the capability to understand; there are more out there. Many, many more.
So, Mr. Cafferty, you have more influence than you realize, but this is not wholly a compliment to you or your American media chums. While your contribution is most intriguing, understand that if CNN were ignored during Super Tuesday, I predict there would have been a struggle, albeit a successful one, to figure out the language on our own. After all, if this is truly a free media, that means we have the power to create, write, and speak our own media, correct? Could it be that the media is only what we, the American people, can make it? I believe it has the potential to be much more malleable that you or I realize.
