By Peter A Bell

IT’S NO secret that, In common with much of the western world, Scotland has a problem with unhealthy eating. According to the Scottish Government, our eating habits are the second major cause, after smoking, of poor health. What we eat, and the way we eat, contributes to a number of serious illnesses, including coronary heart disease, certain types of cancer, strokes, osteoporosis and diabetes.

But food isn’t the only thing that we consume. We are also consumers of media messages. Just as we are affected by the food we eat, so we are influenced by the media messages that we absorb. If we are what we eat; if our bodies are shaped by the food we ingest, then it follows that our minds are, to some extent at least, moulded by the media messages we consume. If we accept that our physical health is dependent on a good balanced diet, then it seems only reasonable to suppose that our intellectual well-being is linked to what we read, watch and listen to.

It is one of the curious tricks of human psychology that each of us tends to think everybody else is overly susceptible to the influence of the media, but few of us admit that we are. People will strenuously deny being influenced by the media while parroting the precise words printed in newspapers or spoken on TV and radio. Of course, it may be argued that the media are merely reflecting the mood of the nation so effectively and accurately that the coincidence of language is only natural. But how credible is that? If the mass media has a null effect, why do those who seek power also crave the attention of the media? If it has no impact, why are vast resources devoted to harnessing its power on behalf of particular interests?