@ The torment they must live
through is put on public display for
the entire world to watch.

dominate the airwaves. Stories are now presented with fancy graphics and theme songs, con-
verting the news into entertainment.

The turning point, where information communications converged with entertainment,
melding into one with no chance of turning back, was the O.J. Simpson trial. Never before had
coverage of a single incident been so thorough, and so extensive. The trial was broadcast in its

entirety, resulting in more coverage than any story in history, including either of the World Wars.

It was 1994 when we first saw the white Bronco speeding down the freeway. The double mur-
der remained.in the headlines for years, and there is still the occasional story in the news about
O.J.

There are book deals, movie deals, exclusive interviews, and authorized and unauthorized
biographies. By the end of it all we know what they had for breakfast. We are more familiar
with the likes of Paul Bernardo, the Oklahoma bombing, Jon Benet Ramsey, and Amy Fisher,
than with foreign policies and political agendas. For some of us we know these names better
than the names of our neighbours. So what is our fascination with all this real life drama that
keeps us coming back for more, time and time again? Have we become so desensitized that we
have to look to our news to find our horror stories?

The truth is, real life tragedy is much more horrifying than anything anyone could
dream up. The hyper-reality stimulates our senses, bringing us a thrill. We have reached a point
where the imaginary doesn't intrigue us enough. Look at the rise of shows such as ‘Cops',
‘World's Scariest Police Chases', 'When Animals Attack’, ‘Rescue 911', and ‘America's Funniest
Home Videos’. Shaky camera work and bad lighting typifies this genre; and it doesn't even mat-
ter if they truly are real, as long as they're convincing (case in point: 'The Blair Witch Project').
Another aspect of this phenomenon is talk shows. We watch with diligent attentiveness as the
world airs its dirty laundry and reveals its skeletons.

So why this cornucopia of real life TV? Because, there is always that little thought in the
back of your mind: it could happen to you. And along with this fear comes the relief that it isn't
happening to you. This occupies our thoughts, conscious or not, to such an extent that we keep
watching. And the producers of these shows know this. They know that we will keep watching.
Headlines are the hook in our news media that keep us coming back for more. Headlines are
used to sell the product. They are leeched until they lure no more. So, as the entertainment
industry becomes more like the news, the news becomes more like the entertainment industry.
Ratings, markets, and shareholders determine headlines. Stories are sucked dry until the viewers
stop watching and the readers stop reading. A story remains until it no longer draws attention
and money.

As | mentioned earlier, in part, the reason why we watch is the knowledge that it could
happen to any one of us. And along with this fear comes the relief that it isn't us.

So why this concern with people who are more often than not of no immediate concern to us?
Television is a staple of a great many homes in North America: people ritualistically bask them-

selves in the warm glow of the tube. And this may be part of the
problem. With the advent of a society where the majority of our
communication exists through the use of secondary vehicles, such
as the computer, our socialization occurs less through interaction
with real live human beings. Thus it stands to reason that we
would come to identify with the people we see most often on a
daily basis, whether they be fictional or not. We become familiar
with the personal lives of these characters; we want to know how
their story ends. Will they survive?

And yet our curiosity seems to take us too far. Have we reached
an age where privacy to mourn is forsaken for the right of the
people to watch? The right of people to pry? The right of the
public to know? With the death of Princess Diana, people were
outraged that the Queen Mother took her sweet time in making a
public address. Now, this particular instance conflates with issues
of privacy of the public figure, but we can see that this brash
interference occurs in other instances. In a recent issue of Time
magazine, there is a photograph of a woman looking over the
bloody bodies of her dead children after the earthquake in Turkey.
The caption reads something to the effect of ‘A mother tries in
vain to save the lives of her children’. There is never the failure of
some news crew to be right there in the midst of disaster, sticking
their cameras in the faces of victims, and demanding comments
from their relatives. The torment they must live through is put on
public display for the entire world to watch.

Over the last few years there has been a rise in shooting
sprees. The Montreal massacre, that preschool shooting in Great
Britain, Littleton Colorado, the copy-cat Taber, Alberta shooting, at
the church in Texas, and many more. Is this perhaps the rise of
people looking for attention in a world where only the drastic gets
noticed? Kids see the live coverage of such events and an already
twisted mind finds a means to get noticed. "Look at how famous
I'll be." The constant media coverage makes the occurrences com-
mon household names, as well known as Bill Clinton. Our
Western culture, which dominates world culture, is dominated by
United States culture. American culture which prizes freedom of
speech and the right to bear arms above all else. Breeding another
generation where they feel they have a right to be heard, and go
to any lengths, even murder, to do so.

The chicken or egg debate brings up some scary possibili-
ties. If you believe that the media reflects the beliefs, morals,
tastes and lives of the general populace then our society is in a
pretty sad state. Never mind that there seems to be ever increas-
ing violence, in volume as well as in severity; the fact that we
seem to be enamoured with it is even more frightening. If you
believe that the media shapes and influences its viewers, creating
morals, beliefs and tastes, then we are creating a bloodthirsty, dis-
aster seeking, and infamy-desiring people. And if you believe in
the more probable combination of the two... well, this seems to
be the most horrifying possibility of them all.

A few weeks ago, there was a vivid image of a man being
beaten to death in East Timor. There was no editing; blood and
body parts were all visible. This was on the evening news. It was
not something that | wanted to see.
dominate the airwaves. Stories are now presented with fancy graphics and theme songs, con-

@ The torment they must live
through is put on public display for
the entire world to watch.

verting the news into entertainment.

The turning point, where information communications converged with entertainment,
melding into one with no chance of turning back, was the O.J. Simpson trial. Never before had
coverage of a single incident been so thorough, and so extensive. The trial was broadcast in its
entirety, resulting in more coverage than any story in history, including either of the World Wars.
It was 1994 when we first saw the white Bronco speeding down the freeway. The double mur-
der remained in the headlines for years, and there is still the occasional story in the news about

OJ.

There are book deals, movie deals, exclusive interviews, and authorized and unauthorized
biographies. By the end of it all we know what they had for breakfast. We are more familiar
with the likes of Paul Bernardo, the Oklahoma bombing, Jon Benet Ramsey, and Amy Fisher,
than with foreign policies and political agendas. For some of us we know these names better
than the names of our neighbours. So what is our fascination with all this real life drama that

keeps us coming back for more, time and time again? Have we become so desensitized that we

have to look to our news to find our horror stories?
The truth is, real life tragedy is much more horrifying than anything anyone could

dream up. The hyper-reality stimulates our senses, bringing us a thrill. We have reached a point

where the imaginary doesn't intrigue us enough. Look at the rise of shows such as ‘Cops’,

‘World's Scariest Police Chases’, ‘When Animals Attack’, ‘Rescue 911', and ‘America's Funniest.
Home Videos'. Shaky camera work and bad lighting typifies this genre; and it doesn't even mat-
ter if they truly are real, as long as they're convincing (case in point: ‘The Blair Witch Project’).
Another aspect of this phenomenon is talk shows. We watch with diligent attentiveness as the

world airs its dirty laundry and reveals its skeletons.

So why this cornucopia of real life TV? Because, there is always that little thought in the
back of your mind: it could happen to you. And along with this fear comes the relief that it isn't
happening to you. This occupies our thoughts, conscious or not, to such an extent that we keep
watching. And the producers of these shows know this. They know that we will keep watching.

Headlines are the hook in our news media that keep us coming back for more. Headlines are
used to sell the product. They are leeched until they lure no more. So, as the entertainment

industry becomes more like the news, the news becomes more like the entertainment industry.
Ratings, markets, and shareholders determine headlines. Stories are sucked dry until the viewers
stop watching and the readers stop reading. A story remains until it no longer draws attention

and money.

‘As | mentioned earlier, in part, the reason why we watch is the knowledge that it could

happen to any one of us. And along with this fear comes the relief that it isn't us.

So why this concern with people who are more often than not of no immediate concern to us?
Television is a staple of a great many homes in North America; people ritualistically bask them-

—@2___

selves in the warm glow of the tube. And this may be part of the
problem. With the advent of a society where the majority of our
communication exists through the use of secondary vehicles, such
as the computer, our socialization occurs less through interaction
with real live human beings. Thus it stands to reason that we
would come to identify with the people we see most often on a
daily basis, whether they be fictional or not. We become familiar
with the personal lives of these characters; we want to know how
their story ends. Will they survive?

And yet our curiosity seems to take us too far. Have we reached
an age where privacy to mourn is forsaken for the right of the
people to watch? The right of people to pry? The right of the
Public to know? With the death of Princess Diana, people were
outraged that the Queen Mother took her sweet time in making a
public address. Now, this particular instance conflates with issues
of privacy of the public figure, but we can see that this brash
interference occurs in other instances. In a recent issue of Time
magazine, there is a photograph of a woman looking over the
bloody bodies of her dead children after the earthquake in Turkey.
The caption reads something to the effect of 'A mother tries in
vain to save the lives of her children’. There is never the failure of
some news crew to be right there in the midst of disaster, sticking
their cameras in the faces of victims, and demanding comments
from their relatives. The torment they must live through is put on
public display for the entire world to watch.

Over the last few years there has been a rise in shooting
sprees. The Montreal massacre, that preschool shooting in Great
Britain, Littleton Colorado, the copy-cat Taber, Alberta shooting, at
the church in Texas, and many more. Is this perhaps the rise of
people looking for attention in a world where only the drastic gets
noticed? Kids see the live coverage of such events and an already
twisted mind finds a means to get noticed. "Look at how famous
I'll be." The constant media coverage makes the occurrences com-
mon household names, as well known as Bill Clinton. Our
Western culture, which dominates world culture, is dominated by
United States culture. American culture which prizes freedom of
speech and the right to bear arms above all else. Breeding another
generation where they feel they have a right to be heard, and go
to any lengths, even murder, to do so.

The chicken or egg debate brings up some scary possibili-
ties. If you believe that the media reflects the beliefs, morals,
tastes and lives of the general populace then our society is ina
pretty sad state. Never mind that there seems to be ever increas-
ing violence, in volume as well as in severity; the fact that we
seem to be enamoured with it is even more frightening. If you
believe that the media shapes and influences its viewers, creating
morals, beliefs and tastes, then we are creating a bloodthirsty, d
aster seeking, and infamy-desiring people. And if you believe in
the more probable combination of the two... well, this seems to
be the most horrifying possibility of them all.

A few weeks ago, there was a vivid image of a man being
beaten to death in East Timor. There was no editing; blood and
body parts were all visible. This was on the evening news. It was
not something that | wanted to see.