Trends of the Past and Future
(Original)

Emily Adlam
(Age 16, New Zealand)
Diocesan School for Girls, Auckland

It has often been lamented that the media have too great an influence on our society and particularly our youth, and certain societal problems can undeniably be traced back to them. But perhaps it is time to view this influence in a different light. In the last century as the media have become more and more powerful; they have made a strong contribution towards the outcomes of world crises. Thus the media could conceivably be used as a tool to change the public’s attitudes on a number of vital issues, not least warfare.

The media have often had considerable impact on the public’s attitudes towards war and peace. In the period immediately preceding World War I, the media propagated pro-war attitudes: non-fiction such as General Bernhardi’s Germany and the New War presented war as an attractive means of overcoming a country’s limitations, while ‘sensationalist’ newspapers exacerbated the growth of aggressive nationalism in European countries. Historians agree that by stimulating favourable attitudes towards war, these media contributed towards the outbreak of World War I. In more recent history, the reaction of print media and television news to the events of September 11 2001 increased the American public’s support for a war which was ostensibly fought to seek out the culprits. On the other hand, the media are capable of creating the opposite effect. During the early 1920s, anti-war novels such as Remarque’s All’s Quiet on the Western Front proliferated, and newspapers promoted ‘appeasement’ as a desirable form of diplomacy. These influences increased anti-war feelings among the ordinary people of Europe, and such attitudes had a major influence on governmental policy, as made evident by a number of peace agreements such as the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact. While war did eventually break out, the population’s opposition to war certainly increased the various governments’ willingness to accept compromise solutions, and in less extreme circumstances might have halted the outbreak of war.

However, the effect of the media is derived from sentiments which already have a strong presence in society. The pro-war sentiments existing before World War I stemmed from the rise of Germany in the previous century creating insecurity throughout Europe; the anger which led to America’s war against Afghanistan was already present due to the terrorist’s actions. Similarly, the anti-war sentiments encouraged by the media after World War 1 naturally resulted from the horrendous experiences of four years of war. Thus in these cases the media were only encouraging trends which already existed. Such sentiments are self-generating: once they have emerged, they are expressed in the media, which further encourages their growth. The media, therefore, have never yet been able to reverse public opinion; they merely reinforce the existing mood.

Clearly if the media are to make a significant contribution to a more peaceful world, they need to have a stronger voice. Ideally, if all forms of media promoted the same anti-war sentiments, it might be possible to manipulate society’s view on war. However, today’s media are dominated by large conglomerates which have continued the trend of sensationalism in order to make profits; they would not be interested in using their power to promote a more peaceful world. Thus to be effective, anti-war activists must otherwise dominate the public eye. They have the moral high ground, and as technology develops this must be exploited in new and innovative ways.

The possibilities presented by new technologies are limited only by our creativity. With the rise of the internet and trends such as social networking, it would be worthwhile investigating the possibility of building communication between youth internationally. Such measures seem small but they could help build empathy, which will be vital if future leaders are to contribute to a peaceful world. Looking into the future, virtual reality is an example of a technology which has long been a staple of science fiction, but is now developing rapidly; in time it will become one of the mainstream media. When it does, it could easily be used to promote peace, through advertisements forcing users to experience first-hand the horrors of war, or by total immersion schemes to help the public have compassion for the victims of war. By embracing these new technologies, anti-war activists will be able to avoid becoming merely ‘wall-paper,’ and will be able to make their message stronger than conflicting messages presented by other groups.

History shows us that the media do have the ability to alter the public’s attitudes towards war, but in the past they have only intensified existing trends. Thus to make a true contribution towards a peaceful world, anti-war media must simply become more powerful than the mainstream equivalent. Only by being open to powerful new technologies will anti-war media make the most of their moral advantage and help to sway public opinion in the direction of peace.