When the press publishes editorials warning of “artificially induced mouse men” or runs cartoons of a “hippopotamus woman” do you think the press is guilty of dangerously sensationalizing the facts and, thereby, endangering the prospects of serious research efforts? Or are they usefully stirring the interest of the public in the dangerous of genetic experimentation?
The video below explores the work of Patricia Piccinini, which explores the slippery slope between curiosity and disgust in hybridity experiments.
I think the press was trying to get the public's attention in order to make more of a profit from people buying the magazines, newspapers, etc. I do not agree with the titles certain articles were given, such as "The Next Step Could be Tree Men" or "Scientists Create Monsters" (pg.142). This was a time when society was making new discoveries and finding out new knowledge in science. These kind of headlines just caused fear factors that weren't needed.
I agree that the titles did push a negative connotation on the subject. In restrospect however, it is easy to understand how the general public could be scared of the unknown. Science has always been a revolutionary subject, and also one that not everyone understands. By feeding of the fears of the general public, newspaper and magazines colmns alike could easily draw a bigger crowd. What sounds more interesting, a story intoducing a new technology to improve humans, or a story depicting monters and tree men ravaging the planet? I belie the answer is as clear as the answer to why a horror movie has a bigger crowd than a documentary.
The press has always been guilty of distorting the facts to draw viewers' and readers' attention. In his 2006 hit song "Waiting on the World to Change" even singing sensation John Mayer entertains the idea that the press twists facts to their liking. When discoveries or events are taken out of context it often puts the organizations in charge of overseeing them in jeopardy. Since the general public did not have a complete set of facts about what was and was not happening in labs around the country, people could not form their own opinions about the safety of these experiments. Patricia Piccinini feeds public interest and discomfort with her artwork. As long as people are entertained by the idea of horror and grotesque beings there will always be a need to supply them with those things as Michael said.
Just judging by my own reaction to the video the press is for sure guilty of dangerously sensationalizing the facts around cell experimentation. If that was thrust in my face and i was told that that's what scientists were actually doing, I'd be totally against it and scared. Just as that video creeped me out, those headlines must have creeped their readers out. And it was completely unnecessary, considering that that wasn't at all what the scientist were doing.
Does the press have any kind of moral obligation to do anything other than sell newspapers, magazines, or ad space? How is the press different from any other business in this respect? If sensationalism sells (or "viewpoint journalism" as opposed to unbiased reporting), shouldn't the press be able to take advantage of that market, even if we think such sensationalism is not in society's interest?
+by+Patricia+Piccinini.jpg)
I think the press was trying to get the public's attention in order to make more of a profit from people buying the magazines, newspapers, etc. I do not agree with the titles certain articles were given, such as "The Next Step Could be Tree Men" or "Scientists Create Monsters" (pg.142). This was a time when society was making new discoveries and finding out new knowledge in science. These kind of headlines just caused fear factors that weren't needed.
ReplyDeleteChelsi Norris
I agree that the titles did push a negative connotation on the subject. In restrospect however, it is easy to understand how the general public could be scared of the unknown. Science has always been a revolutionary subject, and also one that not everyone understands. By feeding of the fears of the general public, newspaper and magazines colmns alike could easily draw a bigger crowd. What sounds more interesting, a story intoducing a new technology to improve humans, or a story depicting monters and tree men ravaging the planet? I belie the answer is as clear as the answer to why a horror movie has a bigger crowd than a documentary.
DeleteThe press has always been guilty of distorting the facts to draw viewers' and readers' attention. In his 2006 hit song "Waiting on the World to Change" even singing sensation John Mayer entertains the idea that the press twists facts to their liking. When discoveries or events are taken out of context it often puts the organizations in charge of overseeing them in jeopardy. Since the general public did not have a complete set of facts about what was and was not happening in labs around the country, people could not form their own opinions about the safety of these experiments. Patricia Piccinini feeds public interest and discomfort with her artwork. As long as people are entertained by the idea of horror and grotesque beings there will always be a need to supply them with those things as Michael said.
ReplyDeleteEmily Davis
Just judging by my own reaction to the video the press is for sure guilty of dangerously sensationalizing the facts around cell experimentation. If that was thrust in my face and i was told that that's what scientists were actually doing, I'd be totally against it and scared. Just as that video creeped me out, those headlines must have creeped their readers out. And it was completely unnecessary, considering that that wasn't at all what the scientist were doing.
ReplyDeleteDoes the press have any kind of moral obligation to do anything other than sell newspapers, magazines, or ad space? How is the press different from any other business in this respect? If sensationalism sells (or "viewpoint journalism" as opposed to unbiased reporting), shouldn't the press be able to take advantage of that market, even if we think such sensationalism is not in society's interest?
ReplyDeleteThis is a follow-up to the previous question: do you see any value in an independent, public-interest press as an alternative to a market-based press?
ReplyDelete