Polarized Public Opinion and Role of Media - Essay Example

? Drug Debate Polarized public opinion and role of media Introduction Debate on drugs has been fierce and public opinion has become increasingly polarized with either side staunchly sticking to their guns refusing to yield the smallest ground. In such a scenario it is necessary to analyze the basic issues involved and the role of media in this conflict of opinions and ideas. The differences of opinion between the opposing parties are based more on perspectives than anything else. While one party to the debate strongly believes drugs debate should be centered on social and health concerns, the other party equally strongly feels that it should be conducted around the tenets of Christian morality. The divide came into sharpest focus in 1997 when Australian Federal Government decided to withdraw government support to methadone treatment in Australia as an antidote to heroin addiction (Bush and Neutze 2000). Prevailing moral attitudes towards drug use Moral positions vary widely from individual to individual. Those who have had no direct interactions with drug users and have no clear idea about the menace have developed some sort fear and abhorrence about it and hence consider drug abuse as something which is grossly immoral. As a corollary of this attitude, all drug addicts in their eyes are people devoid of either ethics or morality and all those who help these drug addicts in having their daily dose are equally immoral and corrupt. But those who have been in close contact with drug addicts have a much more sympathetic attitude about the issue of heroin maintenance (Dingelstad, et al. 1996). There are basically four different moral viewpoints about this issue: The first group believes that it should be permitted as long it does not inflict any harm on others. The second group believes that this is the only possible means to keep drug addicts alive and gradually improve their health and would in some distant future also help them to get rid of this habit completely. The third group believes that this method would not help the drug addicts at all and therefore disapprove heroin maintenance claiming that there definitely should be some other option for improving the health of drug addicts and helping to get rid of the habit. The fourth group believes that this is nothing but an excuse to continue with drug addiction and is therefore strongly opposed to it (Alcorn and Brady 1999). Thus, it seems the possibility of a rapprochement between these widely differing positions is rather remote. But all hope need not be lost as groups holding different attitudes can be questioned regarding the basis of their stands and we can reach a broad area of compromise. The first group, we may term them libertarians, might be questioned that though each individual should have freedom of choice but prolonged use of amphetamine might lead to sudden acts of intense aggression which could surely harm others. Thus, there should not be any blanket freedom in use of drugs. The fourth group consists of those that are strictly against use of any drugs. They are probably confused between use and abuse, since all drugs are used by medical practitioners in restricted doses to cure one ailment or the other. This brings us to the question how much use can be construed as abuse and this genuinely opens up the entire issue. The second and the third groups occupy a middle position as both these groups accept administration of drugs at permissible levels can be allowed provided it helps the drug users to finally overcome the habit and if that is the only way out. It is extremely necessary to bring the two extreme opinions closer to each other as public policy towards drug use must have the support of the majority for it to be a success. The middle ground should ideally be that drug use par se cannot be construed as immoral but if such use harms an individual or adversely affects community welfare, then such is to be restricted, if necessary by terming it as a criminal act (Martin 1999 ). This debate is further marked by what may be termed as politicalization of the issue and relevant information. Each party to the debate trumpets its arguments while conveniently ignoring the counter arguments thus pulling down the debate from the realms of intellectual enquiry to shrill propaganda war. If, however, concrete proof can be forwarded it would surely close the issue but empirical proof is hardly available when we deal in probabilities. The cost of research, the ethical issues associated with the research and the extreme difficulty of rigorously testing hypotheses make it nearly impossible to provide irrefutable empirical proof. As for example, could it proved beyond doubt that heroin maintenance can actually lure more people into taking heroin? In this context it must be remembered that one of axioms of social sciences is that the efficacy of any system cannot be properly evaluated without changing it (Mackay 1999). Role of media in this debate Media unfortunately has not essayed a very constructive role and has largely played along by focusing more on drama and scandal rather than the serious social implications. One instantly remembers the vituperative outburst of Judy Sheindlin, an avowed opponent of drug use and a vastly popular American television judge, when she shrieked “…Give ‘em dirty needles and let ‘em die” (Courier Mail 1999). That most certainly did not reflect a balanced approach. The role of media in shaping public policy is very important as it modulates public opinion which has a very great impact on public policy formulation. Not only the media but also celebrities have muddled the issue even further. It is extremely easy for the media to sway public opinion and media, most unfortunately, has been busy in peddling panics instead of engaging in a purposeful, elucidatory debate. Further, media is in the habit of blowing things out of proportion and stereotyping incidents and putting the blame squarely on a particular reason. It is beneficial for the media as the gullible public laps up such news leading to wider circulation and viewership – the ultimate commercial aim of every media house while they ride the moral high horse all the time (Bell 1982). A case in point is the death of Leah Betts from an overdose of synthetic drug ecstasy and sustained campaign by Betts’ parents about the ill effects of the drug. Her parents had made the issue very emotive by continually declaring that any attempt to mitigate the dangers of ecstasy would amount to an insult to their dead daughter’s memory. Sure such supercharged exhortations would effectively stifle any informed exchange of opinion (McQuail 1987). In this cacophony one must never forget that ecstasy is a comparatively new drug whose effects on human body are yet to be fully examined though it has been established that continued use of the drug generally leads to mental depression and anxiety and also might have harmful effects on the brain. A person taking ecstasy for the first time might die immediately though the empirically established chances of death due to ecstasy consumption should not be more than one in 6.8 million (Calcutt and Davenport 1997). However, Betts’ father denounced such statement as being irresponsible and refused to acknowledge the empirically established evidence. While being entirely respectful to their emotions one is constrained to comment that hysteria or supercharged emotions should not be allowed to cloud rationality (Furedi 1994). The media had decided to fuel hysteria at the cost of balance and rationality and was determined to paint a scenario where almost every teenager had become an addict of ecstasy and was inexorably hurling towards disaster. The situation became even more complicated with Brian Harvey of East 17 publicly declaring he enjoyed consuming ecstasy. Most certainly he should not have made such a comment especially when East 17 enjoyed huge following among teenagers but Harvey was suddenly portrayed in the darkest possible light and was made directly responsible for all future deaths due to ecstasy consumption. East 17 was practically ostracized and Harvey lost his job with the band and was forced to render a public apology for his comments (Wood 1997). Same fate awaited Noel Gallagher of Oasis when he tried to unravel the hypocrisy that surrounds the issue of drug consumption in present day society. His statements rocked British society and a prominent British MP even called for his prosecution and like Harvey he was also forced to publicly admit his ‘mistakes’ and issue an apology. Such whipping up of social emotions and punishing all those that dared to oppose mob hysteria was not very much different from the witch hunt of seventeenth century with media usurping the role of ill informed and utterly bigoted religious fanatics who initiated and orchestrated burning alive those luckless women on stakes. Conclusion While it is surely a matter of serious concern that drug use should be restricted and monitored, one must also understand that modern society cannot do without drugs. Media has a very important role to play in this regard as it has to clear many misconceptions that have been ingrained in public psyche. These wrong perceptions stymie any well meaning attempt by social activists to help those that have got entangled in this pernicious net as society tends to not only denounce drug addicts but also those who attempt to bring them back to normal social life. But, sadly enough, media has very rarely shown any glimpses of behaving in a positive manner. References Alcorn, G., and N. Brady. "Heroin: the bogeyman of the frightened '90s." The Age , 1999. Bell, P. Headlining Drugs: An Analysis of Newspaper Reports of Drug-related Issues in the NSW Press. Sydney: Drug and Alcohol Education and Information Centre, 1982. Bush, Bill, and Max Neutze. "In Search of What is Right: The Moral Dimensions of the Drug Debate." Australian Journal of Social Issues, 2000. Calcutt, A., and N. Davenport. Ecstasy and Apostasy. 1997. http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM98/LM98_Drugs.html#1 (accessed February 15, 2011). Courier Mail. November 17, 1999. Dingelstad, D., Richard. G., B. Martin, and N. Vakas. "The social construction of drug debates." Social Science and Medicine, 43 (12), 1996: 1829-38. Furedi, Frank. "A Plague of Moral Panics." Living Marxism, Issue 73, 1994. Mackay, H. Turning Point: Australians choosing their future. Sydney: Macmillan, 1999. Martin, B. "Suppression of Dissent in Science ." In Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, vol. 7, by W. R. Freudenburg and T. I. K. Youn (eds). Stamford, CT: JAI Press , 1999 . McQuail, Denis. Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage, 1987. Wood, Mathew. Moral Panics. April 1997. http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/mtw9403.html (accessed February 15, 2011). Read More