Feud for thought
FEUDS and public disagreements are the stuff of both social and traditional media. Sometimes, the conflict is between regulators and regulated — TV personalities condemned for icing escapades (What is it about icing whether wiped on the face of a waiter serving cake at a birthday party, or publicly sucked from the fingers of a loved one, slowly and on live TV?). They also cover corporate struggles of certain groups for control of a company; walkouts in budget hearings; and celebrity couples in disarray — there is no third person.
Public conflicts provide drama as past histories are shared and the current conflict is traced to some divergence at some point when friends turned to foes. A senior statesman may even get into the fray on a purely non-political discourse of social etiquette.
There is even a self-appointed scold who throws verbal darts at established celebrities (she’s all washed up) just to start the ball rolling and provide click bait on his sites. He is fond of posting his bare-chested photo and describing himself as an influencer, and motivational speaker. How does he motivate? Is that the same as afflicting the comfortable and waiting for their reaction, if any? Is it best to just ignore him altogether?
Are such feuds being fueled by those with some hidden agenda, or merely the creation of media as simpler to report than inflation rates, the price of rice, and sovereign funds?
“Feudal” reporting is not confined to politics or entertainment. Business journalism has gotten into the feud business too and now no longer discusses price-earnings ratio, market share, innovations, or returns on investments. It is starting to focus on personal animosity within a company, between owner and labor leaders, between titans taking over and being taken over, among stockholder blocks, and between regulatory agencies and the companies they supervise and barriers they impose on doing business in this country.
Specialty media organizations now feature business gossip. These specialize in starting feuds and attacking corporate personalities. Such online medium follows a business model. Yes, it’s about ad revenues. It reaches out to the targets and markets a year’s worth of ad placements in exchange for peace of mind. It’s the old-fashioned Sicilian model for protection. They ask for ads and ensure peace and quiet. For a little more, they can feature the target in a friendly interview. Questions will be submitted ahead of time so there are no surprises. They have a way of marketing placements by little reminders.
It is not surprising that media emphasis on feuds has somehow evolved into an obsession not with issues but personalities.
Coverage based on hostility between persons concentrates on looking for villains. The finger-pointing exercise of he-said-she-said gets heated especially with the inevitable exaggerations encouraged by commentators.
In the verbal boxing match, the basic understanding of ideas and issues becomes irrelevant. And because the exchange of accusations becomes ever more acrimonious, the resolution of a crisis, which all parties concerned should endeavor to promote, becomes difficult. Only the waning interest of the audience saves the crisis from getting worse.
The feud characterizes public life. Thus, party politics does not even pretend to be about ideas, but about alliances around dominant personalities. The ascent of parties is measured not in the advancement of their ideas but in the level of defections they can attract.
When confronted with a crisis, our first instinct is to fix the blame, rather than look for a solution. The priority when anything goes wrong is to find out who was responsible — who approved this thing and which camp does this villain belong to?
The feudal slant has not graduated beyond the tabloid approach. Feuds do not necessarily stand for differences in opinions and views on price caps, food taxes, and tariffs. They are just clashes of celebrities tearing out each other’s teeth.
Issues anyway seem too daunting to explain in their complexity. What about the intricacies of the educational system? Isn’t it better to focus on walkouts and confidential budgets? Underneath those feuds and verbal exchanges lie real issues of right and wrong. Perhaps national issues need to have faces… so that they can be properly faced.
Tony Samson is chairman and CEO of TOUCH xda
