Monday, August 9, 2010

Responsibility of the Media

On Dan O'Day's site there's a wonderful video of Paul McCartney being interviewed about 40 years ago. He argues that it's the responsibility of the media, not the celebrity, when information about that celebrity is disseminated which may influence people. It's a good argument which I suppose I agree with as long as the celebrity is not the one initiating the release of the information. Paul said he'd have preferred to keep his LSD use private, that it was the media who wanted to know and who made it public.

But, how would this apply to Glenn Beck? In his case the media and the celebrity are one in the same. It seems pretty clear to me. What do you think?

In the conversation between Paul McCartney and his interviewer it seemed to be a given that someone is responsible. Paul said he didn't think it made any difference, but they seemed to both agree that if young people were influenced to use drugs because they knew McCartney had, then it was either the responsibility of Paul himself or the media.

When some maniac shoots up the place after listening to the ranting of Glenn Beck, I say Glenn Beck shares in that responsibility.

What's your opinion?


  1. "There ought to be a law!"


    There is a well established link between media coverage of a mass killing and future mass killings. What responsibility do you share Mike?

    China mandates media blackouts during times of multiple mass stabbings and mass road rage fatalities with stunning effictiveness: you never hear of any more happening after the blackout.

    Heck, we'll just suspend the First amendment after we too discover that suspending the Second doesn't work.

    Then the Constitution will be much more easily done away with once its teeth are gone.

  2. Thanks Anon for clarifying. From your link:

    "It isn’t the role of the government to intervene in any individual’s pursuit of happiness, no matter how misdirected it may be, unless it violates the rights of other people."

    That can be variously interpreted, don't you think.