Kim Severson published a feature story in the New York Times yesterday on so-called "lazy locavores" -- that is, people who want to eat locally grown produce but don't have the space, time, or energy to garden.
While it's no hack-job, the article frames general "green" activities in trend-journalism terms. This, in my mind, is socially irresponsible.
Save the gee-golly-did-ya-hear-what-those-crazy-kids-are-up-to-now? pieces for cuddle parties, metrosexuals, and, I don't know, dudes who slather their chests with Preparation H to look ripped.
The novelty of "going green" may be nothing more than a fun change-up for some, but Severson paints her subjects as trend-spotting bandwagon-jumpers. This is the inherent framework of a trend piece: Find something a few folks are doing, leech onto it, and hype it up as the next passing fad.
Just look at this example, from my former paper. Note the hint of exhaustion and irritation in the headline, as though whoever wrote it is totally sick of hearing about organic-this and carbon-footprint-that.
Here's my main problem with articles like these: We are in the beginning stages of what is most certainly not a fad or a trend. Our society is fundamentally shifting away from conspicuous consumption and toward sustainability. You've no doubt noticed. To report these seismic changes as standard trend-spotting journalism is counter productive, because it suggests that sustainability's just a fleeting trend. It's not -- and it deserves better than coverage that simply asks "Guess what's gone organic this week??"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment