Strengthening Youth, the Family and the Individual Using the Media

by Father Mc Kevitt, Irland, editor of “Alive!”

The following contribution was presented at the XII “Mut zur Ethik” conference, “Giving Inner Courage – Democracy, Values, Education and Dialogue”, which took place in Feldkirch, Austria, from 3-5 September 2004.

Recently the British Government gave permission to scientists to clone human beings. And when that was being reported on the news, the advantages of this possible cloning in terms of health (?) were stressed - both in the newspapers and on the television. The various benefits that would come from cloning were emphasized.

In doing so the media were not simply reporting what the government had done, they were actually supporting it and promoting it. They were promoting human cloning and making it acceptable. But they were doing something more: in promoting human cloning and in linking it with benefits they were promoting a utilitarian ethic, a moral relativism. Whether they intended to do so or not, that was what was happening.

This is just one example of the huge importance and part of the media in our society today. Until about 40 years ago the media in Ireland supported Christian values, they supported human dignity. But since that time, there has been a radical change, and the media have now become the main opponents of Christian values, the main opponents of respect for life, the main opponents of respect for marriage, of the family, of religion.

The media in Ireland I think are probably unique in the sense that they are united in this position now, in spite of the fact that it is still - even in Ireland - a minority position. How have we reacted to this position, to this role of the media?

To a large extent we have simply regarded the media as the enemy, we have regarded them as a hopeless case, something we cannot do anything about. We have taken two approaches in this: Sometimes if we get a letter published, or if we get an article in favour of our position published then we are very happy and we feel we have achieved something, even though it is very tiny compared to the flood of information in the opposite direction. The other approach we have taken is to try to fight the media. We do so by leaflets or by alternative media such as what I am doing with the “Alive!”-paper, or with Current Concerns, or when it comes to a time for a referendum that we go out campaigning door to door.

But in all of this we are simply leaving the media as they are. And I do not think that is enough. I think that the media are too important in our society simply to be left aside and left in peace to do what they want in this manner. To a large extent the media have the present position that they have because of our neglect and our failure to really tackle them. What we should be aiming to do I think is to convert them. And that should be a central concern of all our groups and our organisations. Of bringing the media over to our side. Of making the media promoters of good values and good principles in our society. That is the first point I really want to emphasize that this should be a central concern of all of our groups and our organisations.

We can feel that the media are too powerful and so we cannot touch them, and we feel hopeless in the face of the media. In fact, the media stand on two very shaky legs. And once we realize that, we begin to realize that the situation is not so hopeless.

The two very shaky legs the media stand on are circulation – the number of copies that they sell, the number of people that watch the TV program – and the other very shaky leg is advertising. And I think that if we attack the media on either of those legs, or better still on both of those legs, then the media will begin to listen to our concerns.

I am just going to say a word or two for a moment about the advertising situation and offer a possible approach. This approach requires a small number of people – three or four - with a small amount of money and access to the internet. And if an article appears in a newspaper, or if a newspaper adopts a line, an editorial view, that is anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-life, than that this small group of people would contact up to a hundred people and ask them – a hundred people on a mailing-list or on a data-base on the internet – and we contact these hundred people and we ask them to phone four of the advertisers who were in that newspaper that day and we ask them to spend one minute – at least one minute - talking politely to the advertiser and explaining why the advertiser should not be advertising in a paper that is promoting these values. We do so politely.

If one hundred people do that it takes two hours of the advertiser’s time. If one thousand people do that, it takes twenty hours of the advertiser’s time, that is three days of one person working just entering our complaints. When everybody does that twice to the advertiser, than we are talking about a person spending one whole week dealing with complaints about the advertisement in that newspaper. No advertiser wants to do that. No business wants to do that. And very soon the advertiser will get on to the media and will point this out to them.

This is possible to do because of the internet where one e-mail can be sent to a hundred people or a thousand people in a few seconds, and we simply say to the people: please phone this telephone number and politely commit your complaint.

I think if we do that we are attacking one of the legs of the media, in a place where it hurts them very badly, because believe me: the media do not like trouble for their advertisers. And this is – I think – a very strong way of tackling the media, once we are convinced that this is what we must do.