"You are what you eat!" is a principle that doesn't apply only to food. Psychologists recognize that what you 'feed' your mind helps shape your personality to a greater or lesser degree. That's why, when it comes to children in particular, it's wise to exercise caution in what we allow them access to. We don't want unsuitable material - whatever form it takes - working its influence on their impressionable young minds. However, as I've said before, it's the content and not the 'carton' which defines whether something is suitable or not.
At one time or another it seems that almost all of society's problems have been blamed on either movies, music, video games, books, TV - and, of course, comics. That's not to say that the aforementioned mediums don't sometimes play their part, but other factors are also culpable, sometimes even more so. Often, it's just too easy to point the finger at a handy scapegoat than it is to look at the whole problem from a wider perspective.
One such instance appeared in the late and largely unlamented NEWS Of The WORLD on April 3rd, 1994. I have excised the names to spare any possible distress to the families of those involved, and omitted any paragraphs which did not pertinently pertain to comics, but the tone of the piece remains intact.
STAB MAN WAS CAPTAIN MARVEL CRAZY - He collected violent mags.
The man accused of stabbing a 12-year-old schoolgirl to death in her classroom spent hours poring over violent Captain Marvel comics. The loner was enthralled by the scenes of death and mayhem in the American superhero magazines. In one edition Captain Marvel is seen battling with a knife-wielding alien. Characters say things like "Death should be a glorious event," and "Life should be a continuous series of pains."
Stop there for a moment. The paper fails to distinguish 'twixt heroes and villains or to mention that the good guys consider the baddies' actions, motivations and rationalizations to be thoroughly reprehensible. It neglects to inform us that the bad guys make their pitch, the good guys resist - and, eventually, overcome all obstacles to triumph in the end. In short, a morality tale. It's as if the paper has gone out of its way to rip things out of context and misrepresent what these comics are actually about. So, what else does NOTW say?
Former schoolpals yesterday recalled the teenage years when they devoured the tales and disturbing illustrations in the fantasy world of horror comics. "We all read them, but he took it much further," said one. "He was always drawing the characters and was excellent at it. He made up his own stories with all the Marvel heroes. We enjoyed the Captain Marvel comics, with all their violent images. But it never occurred to me as being unusual. He seemed totally normal. The only thing different about him was he spent so much time with comics. He had a huge collection of them. He was obsessed with violent comics like Captain Marvel, The Incredible Hulk and (sic) Spiderman."
One naturally wonders if the quotes are accurate. Would any comic reader really describe 1970's code-approved superhero comics like the ones named as "violent"? I somehow doubt it. Action-packed, certainly - but violent? Not only does NOTW reiterate the alleged "violent" aspect, but also pours fuel on the fire by describing these comics as "disturbing", "horror" comics. (I know from experience that newspapers often 'punch up' stories by rendering paraphrases as direct quotes and isolating sentences from their frame of reference.)
In short, it's a hatchet job. The reporter doesn't seem to be familiar with the actual content of the comics named, otherwise he would never have described them in the way he did. (If he cared about accuracy that is.) However, comics don't have a monopoly in being 'picked on' in this manner. Newspapers, because they cast themselves in the role of righteous crusaders in pursuit of truth, justice, morality and decency (instead of just another business chasing a buck), often target other mediums that - like GALACTUS - they consider themselves to be above and beyond in the scheme of things.
The truth is much simpler. Some newspapers are nothing more than purveyors of all the worst aspects of society. They pander to the seedier and more salacious appetites of certain sections of the public while claiming, rather ridiculously in my opinion, to be "family" newspapers. (Even the scurrilous DAILY and SUNDAY SPORT make this claim, while counting down the days until some 15-year-old girl is old enough to 'get her kit off' for their readers.)
One wonders how a newspaper which readily peddles nudity (page 3), gambling (bingo), and panders to an interest in the supernatural (horoscopes), while reporting rape, paedophillia, murder, etc., in the most lewd, prurient and unnecessary detail can presume to claim the moral highground when pontificating on society's many ills. Now, obviously I'm indulging in a slight bit of ironic hyperbole with the first part of the preceding sentence in order to make a point, but perhaps we should be asking ourselves what effect a steady diet of such content day after day or week after week could have on the minds of some of those exposed to it. (You are what you eat, remember!)
In short, could the "loner" who murdered a 12-year-old girl have been a News Of The World reader? Makes one wonder, eh?
4 comments:
Good point about newspapers posing as crusaders when they are really chasing a buck. Journalists like to portray themselves as public servants, like police, firefighters, and paramedics. In fact, journalism is a for-profit business, no different from the big oil companies, automobile manufacturers, or comic book publishers.
Indeed, well said. Any benefit to society is a by-product of chasing a buck, and doesn't ensue from a noble desire to improve the lot of anyone.
Nice post, British newspapers are not just at the bottom of the barrel where morality is concerned, on occasion reading them is like taking a dip in a sewage farm. It's not just comics that get a bashing, it's anything directed at level beyond the drivel the papers peddle. One of the most despicable headlines I ever encountered was in the aftermath of a murder where a suspect, who turned out to be innocent, was demonized for his fondness of a poem, 'favourite poem was about killing wife'. according to The Daily Mirror.The poem? The Ballard of Reading Goal.
Isn't it absurd that they point out the alleged unethical behaviour of others, but resort to unethical (and in some cases illegal) methods in order to secure a story?
Post a Comment