The news media is desperate, so they are sitting there waiting. For what are they waiting? For whom are they waiting? We saw it last week, in the story of Natalee Holloway. We saw it the last few years in the trial of Scott Peterson. Remember Jessica Lynch? We saw it with Chandra Levy. And even before that with Jon Benet Ramsey. They're waiting for the next white, attractive, female to turn up missing so they can report on the damsel in distress.
More on the flip...
It's really like an assembly line. Once one matter is resolved -- either through the unfortunate death of someone, the reunion of the damsel and her family, or the case being closed -- another one is found. That is, one that fits the requirements. Eugene Robinson wrote an article in the
Washington Post on the phenomenon of the "damsel in distress" obsession in the media, and I'll let him speak for me a bit here:
A damsel must be white. This requirement is nonnegotiable. It helps if her frame is of dimensions that breathless cable television reporters can credibly describe as "petite," and it also helps if she's the kind of woman who wouldn't really mind being called "petite," a woman with a good deal of princess in her personality. She must be attractive -- also nonnegotiable. Her economic status should be middle class or higher, but an exception can be made in the case of wartime (see: Lynch).
Put all this together, and you get 24-7 coverage. The disappearance of a man, or of a woman of color, can generate a brief flurry, but never the full damsel treatment. Since the Holloway story broke we've had more news reports from Aruba this past week, I'd wager, than in the preceding 10 years.
Of course this is not meant to trivialize the tough times these families went through, and it should not be read that way -- but the media should be criticized for making these tough times even more unbearable. Though it's horrible, the ongoing reporting of Elizabeth Smart's disappearance seven days after it happened will not affect me if I live in Salem, Ohio. Why do I need to know about the trial of Scott Peterson every day? The only thing that's happening with these situations is the pain for those families is becoming that much more magnified -- they're put under a microscope for the rest of the world to see. Why? Because these news networks exploit the stories for their own financial advantage.
And to twist the argument around, just in case someone actually thinks these families do enjoy the coverage, there are thousands of other families going through the same thing. 2,100 times a day a parent or primary care-giver feels a situation where their child is missing is serious enough to call the police (http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-mc-mcstatistics.htm). Families that are missing boys, families that are African-American, Asian-American, families that are poor -- do they get that coverage? And there are those who say that America has moved past bigotry?
Certainly we do have the First Amendment, which allows for a free press. However, with every freedom comes a responsibility. Maybe the media should be a bit more responsible with their coverage -- if they're going to do these stories, fine. But in my opinion, in order to do these stories up to my standards and Eugene Robinson's standards, it would be fifty years from now and they'd still be reporting these same stories. Why? Because there are more of these "distressed" people than just the white, petite, middle-class, attractive females that the mainstream media tells us about.