• News
• Fringe
• Sports
• Editorial
• UH Section
• Archives

• About
• Join the Post
• Contact
• Advertising

• E-mail
• Print
• Text size:

We are so fixed on the local media that often times we do not know what is going on in other parts of the world.

Does anyone know what’s going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo? The U.S. presidential campaign seems to be the only thing that the media has been covering the past few months. I guess because the U.S. was having an election means that nothing else was newsworthy enough to stymie the coverage. The presidential election is important, but the displacement of 250,000 Congolese is more important than the horserace coverage, negative advertising and, however funny it may be, Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin.

Now that the election is over, will the media go back and report on the events that were pushed aside for the campaign? Heck no they won’t. The stories that did not make the news are long gone, but the DR of Congo crisis is not. The fighting in DR of Congo has gone on for years, but in recent weeks it has erupted despite the peacekeeping efforts by the United Nations. Rebel forces surrounded the town of Goma, forcing civilians and military personnel to flee to refugee camps that do not have enough food or water. Not only are the camps ill-supplied, but the destruction of refugee camps by the rebels has caused about 50,000 to be without shelter.

Why don’t we hear more about the DR of Congo? Is it because the issue is so far away that it does not affect us? We are so fixed on the local media that often times we do not know what is going on in other parts of the world. The United States is often thought to be too ethnocentric. In general, and when compared to other nations, we are less interested in other parts of the world. All around the world people know the name Barack Obama. They even know the name John McCain, and he didn’t even win. How many Americans know that Canada elected Stephen Harper as their prime minister? My guess would be not that many. Whose fault is it that we aren’t more aware of what’s going on around us, the public or the media?

Some would argue that the media makes decisions based on what the people want. Others say that the media makes decisions based on what they want people to know and people are forced to consume what’s presented to them. We often hear that the media tells us what to think, but not how to think and that is a supposed to be a good thing. Yet I disagree. In general I do not think the media tells us what to think, at least not outwardly. But, if the media tells us what to think, don’t they also not tell us what they don’t want us to think?

I would like to believe that we aren’t simply spoon fed media. We do have a choice in the type of media we consume, but there is more to it than that. We have a ridiculous amount of television channels, radio stations, and magazines to choose from, but only a few large corporations have control of these media. I don’t want these few corporations to have total control over telling the public what to think about or more so, what not to think about. I try to combat these corporations by getting my news from BBC, New York Times, and Google News. I don’t know if my strategy is working in allowing me to get the most diverse media, but it’s better than simply letting a few large corporations tell me, or more often not tell me, what to think about.

Lacy Kurtz

> Comments