sensational or fundamental?

[johnlock]

"Unfortunately, the media tend to highlight what is sensational at the moment. Society would be better served if the media reported or focused more fully on events and trends that will ultimately have the most long-term significance."

 

 

Some people have whipped the media for its focus on sensational things and failure to inform the public on events that impact the society significantly in the long run. Admittedly, media highlights lack the solemnity and depth usually characteristic of philosophical propositions or mathematical theorems, but news report is marked by immediacy and sensational report is exactly the best thing the media can offer to the society.

Media highlights have drawn fire due to their antithetic nature to fundamental truth. Marked by transience, sensational highlights are relatively shocking, entertainment-oriented and titillating and consequently the least informative source from which one can develop holistic or in-depth opinion about things that may have future influences. What’s more, in a democratic society as ours, the media may mislead our legislators and executives by burying things of future significance in the swamping report of sensational news. Besides, sensational highlights consist in largely trash talk-shows and local news bombardment. Therefore they tend to deprive the public of sound judgment on really important things, undermine their collective sensibilities and make them vulnerable to demagogy.

 

However, nothing better can be expected of the media other than highlights. Above all, it is unfair to require the media to cover all the things, sensational or fundamental, happening in the kaleidoscopic world everyday. Furthermore, the media can survive only by catching up with the present. The courses of many events are so unpredictably complicated, usually going another way the moment we have racked our brains to fix the current orientation, that the media can only show us what is happening now. Besides, events and records with considerable future significance are better left to historians, analysts and academic observers who are more ready and suitable in a position to predict. Another justification of media highlights comes from the quick tempo of modern life. Since everybody is busy in his/her business, the highlights suit exactly the case because they are picked out for their current significance. In sum, highlights are the best the media can offer to a society increasingly busy.

 

In fact, the media can serve the society better with filtering of sensational highlights and balanced report orientation. Certainly the media must get rid of trash reports that waste both the time of reporters and audience, not to mention invidious or pernicious contents. Anyhow the society is to be served rather than fooled. There should also be a more balanced orientation in reporting. The categorization of broadsheets and tabloids is desirable because it makes clear the focus of reportation. More importantly, the media should pay closer attention to the truth revealed in reports.

 

The media act as the eyes of the public. Though we like the colorful scenes in sight, we do not want to be so myopic as to lose vision of the significant out of sight.

[segrim]

I have one sensation from fundamental physics... I am a solitary scientist, but I was able to make the discovery in fundamental physics, and in such section, in which there was not a single dicovery for TWO THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Autoritative magazine "World Journal of Mechanics" checked my information during 2 months, then appeared my article "Discovery in Statics":

look http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/wjm.2013.38034

or Articles_WJM_Scientific Research Publishing

If Grigory Perelman, for example, solved "the problem of the century", so I, at my opinion, solved "the problem of two thousands of years": during more than 2000 years the STATICS (which is a subsection of mechanics, belonging to classical physics) considered this scientific direction as IMPOSSIBLE for the discoveries.