Newton Minow Vast Wasteland

We all have capabilities. We all have talents. We all have potential. We all have power. But, do we use our talents for good or for evil? In “Vast Wasteland,” Newton Minow warns broadcasters of the power of influence. Television, media, and now the Internet are powerhouses for influence, whether that power is good or bad. While I agree with his position on media’s power of influence, I do not accept the idea that the government has the sole responsibility to regulate media.

Jim Morrison, a famous songwriter, once stated, “Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” Morrison’s words align perfectly with Minow’s warning that media, “has limitless capabilities for good—and for evil.” Even in the 1960s, Minow realized the amazing potential

of media. A perfect example of media’s influence is the Internet. Social media websites, such as Instagram and FaceBook, practically control the minds of today’s teenagers. Teens are engulfed in “selfies” and “twerking,” sending them in to a frenzy of Internet-fueled activities. My sister Madison is a prime example of social media’s influence on young teenagers. Madison can’t go a day without her smartphone. It almost seems as if she must meet her daily quota of “likes” and “followers” on Instagram. But, the Internet is not the only type of media influencing people. Children, including my younger brother, are also being influenced by media, specifically television. My brother Logan is a 4th grader and his daily life revolves around television. When Logan starts a television show, he has to finish it. His entire mind is focused on the TV screen, no matter what is going on around him. Not only is he engulfed in the screen, television becomes a topic of conversation. Children base their entire social life around television. The TV screen has crippled children’s minds to the point that they can only engage in one thing, staring blankly at a colorful monitor. Morrison’s words ring true about media’s power over the mind, but is this power good or bad?
If media has such a strong impact on today’s population, who should impact the media? Minow believed the government’s duty was to control the output of media. I beg to differ. In the 1930s, Germany was repairing its economy and domestic devastation. People were poor, starving, and sick; the Germans had no idea what to do next. The Germans were weak, vulnerable, and susceptible. Adolf Hitler took advantage of Germany’s weakness and began to issue propaganda. Throughout the next few years, Hitler and the Nazi Party grew to become leaders of the nation of Germany. Today’s population is easily impacted, too. My little brother and sister will believe anything their favorite cartoon character or celebrity say is correct. The people of the 21st century want others to decide their stance on topics. If today’s world is so easily influenced, we could be falling in to the hands of Nazi propaganda and not even know it. Allowing the government to control the media would be revoking the freedom of speech in the First Amendment. Minow not only believed it was the government’s duty to control media, but also broadcasters. Broadcasters, however, only work for money. The welfare of the people and the discretion of certain television shows are not considered when broadcasters air hours of material. Executives from ABC, HBO, and other famous channels only consider one thing, how much money the show will generate. If a television show has profanity and nudity yet will make plenty of money, the series will air whether children are watching the TV or not. Giving the responsibility to the government and broadcasters is too dangerous. But, who is going to accept the responsibility?
Marie Winn’s Television: The Plug-In Drug reveals who should accept responsibility, parents.

Throughout the book, Winn gives examples of parents that have allowed the television to become the center of the family. Parents, not broadcasters, should have the responsibility of regulating media. TV broadcasters will display whatever makes the most money, but parents should decide what is good or evil. Even the Internet has become the heart of the family; I’ve seen the Internet’s takeover myself. My family enjoys eating out at local restaurants. But when we arrive at our table, the phones and handheld games are pulled out. Immediately, all conversations end and the Internet takes over our thoughts and focus. Even my parents fall prey to the Internet’s snare. From the start, parents should have regulated children’s usage of media. The only problem is, parents refuse to accept this responsibility. Mothers and fathers all around the country think that media is a good thing. The false belief that the Internet allows people to be more sociable is ridiculous. The misconception that television keeps kids away from the world’s distractions is ludicrous. In reality, media is the distraction. The Internet and television pull us away from what matters, family. Parents have become passive with their duties and responsibilities. Marie Winn realized that, “parents’ educational role in their children’s lives is taken over by media.” Television and the Internet have become the mother and father of today’s

children.
When Minow stated that media has, “limitless capabilities for good—and for evil,” he was correct. Media has strong influence, and someone must be responsible for that power. I, however, think that the government and broadcasters should not regulate media. The government should not have the choice to air certain shows. Instead, parents should be responsible for regulation of media. If a television show seems inappropriate, the parents must accept responsibility and take action. Minow was certainly a man before his time. He foresaw media’s power of influence, and I agree that media carries weighty responsibilities. If we do not accept our duty to regulate television and the Internet, what will the media influence us in to accepting?