The Rundown: Our modern society is bombarded with intense news stories from around the world. This can lead us, the viewers to densitization, and in some cases, conditioned apathy, regarding the issues presented in the mass media. Is this good or bad? It depends on the individual viewer's standards.
In modern society we are bombarded by messages from around the world. The news hits us from all angles: TV, radio, newspapers, periodicals, the internet, your neighbors, your family, and more. The news has greater potential to be easily taken to heart if it comes from a personalized source, such as a manually selected RSS feed, newsletter, or searching for the sports section in your newspaper.
But there is much speculation about mass media and the overall effect the outlets have on their audiences. Many people are considered desensitized to the shock of bad news and good news alike. This desensitization could lead to apathy, given that no major feeling could directly stimulate a response of a corresponding magnitude. Apathy can also be a pre-existing condition in that the audience simply did not previously care about the topic presented.
Is this apathy a good thing or a bad thing? Are there moral consequences to such lack of disposition?
One side of the argument is that apathy is a mark of poor human character. It shows a lack of concern for other human beings. Apathy towards good news displays that the audience is not willing to share in the excitement and pride of achievement. Apathy towards bad news displays that the audience is not willing to feel the despair and pain of those afflicted. Without excitement, or at least a positive value attributed to the experience, there is no inspiration to do positive things. Without negative feelings, there is no desire to protect oneself (or others) from falling prey to the calamities presented by the media.
It seems that sympathetic or empathetic feelings have purpose to steer the course of life. The answer is not so simple, however.
Another factor that must be considered is the saturation of media with negatively framed views. Wars, violence, sickness, and corruption nearly fill today's mass media. Swimming in the sea of negativity can warm you up to the temperature pretty quickly. Apathy seems to come naturally when the majority of days are colored blue. After all, it's just another sad day for the world, isn't it?
This in mind, morality has a shifted center point. Instead of the truly humdrum, the negative is regarded as the norm. A newcomer would interpret this as apathy, whereas the the audience in this environment would regard this as nothing to fret about.
Having separated the two extremes we can observe the effects of the divergence. The apathetic have the advantage of an emotionless observation, but the intrinsic lack of motivation. The emotionally concerned have the advantage of increased motivation, but this can often lead to cloudy or hasty judgment because emotions have a tendency to inspire immediate activity.
On the other hand, the extreme use of either may be considered detrimental to the observer. Emotion can be useful, but a certain amount of apathy can protect from emotional damage if there is an adverse outcome to the situation in question. Apathy can help the observer remain as neutral to an idea as possible, but a certain amount of emotion can help steer the goal towards a (subjectively determined) beneficial outcome.
So is there a healthy medium for all topics in the media? First remember that what is being presented is more often a transitive fact. This means that some interpretation (See Video 4.5) has interceded the information. Second, remember that not all situations are interpreted identically (laterally, amongst the collective), so both the definition of apathy and the need for apathy will differ.
The moral consequences, in the short answer, are unique. The fact that a single message is broadcast to many people doesn't take away from the fact that each of the individuals can have their say about it, it just means that the topic then becomes "commonplace". Apathy to topics in mass media should be regarded on a case-by-case basis, even though common understandings and interpretations can surface. Saturation of information (parallel to market saturation) of information may establish an accepted standard, but given the potential in any situation regarding a general group of people to come down with a case of 'The Bandwagon Blues', the measure of a negative or positive apathetic reaction can be stunted. But it goes both ways. Associations and reinforcements in group dynamics can both inhibit and foster growth of opinionated viewpoints. That means the bandwagon blues applies to both interpretations, given that emotions and apathy both have their disadvantages.
In summation, when it comes to the good news, the bad news, and just the updates, it's up to each individual to ascribe their own value of whether apathy is good or bad to each story. To each, is their own scoop.
C. Thomas (Author, Proprietor)
-Edited by S. Walsh
-Topic provided by dclaw
