Pollution in Washington, DC: An examination of how the media has polluted our minds for stagnant change
If mom jeans can make a come-back, why can’t our political participation make one too?
Kenneth Gergen’s The Saturated Self, warned humans about the rise of technology and its ability to possibly saturate the mind of human beings. This extreme “saturation” is a result of too many influences from the mass media, creating uncertainty in the psyche of American citizens. The concept goes by the name of “multiphrenia” and is exactly what America today is experiencing.
Before I start with how multiphrenia is impacting our society, I have a couple questions for the reader. How did you find this article? Did you click on the ad I paid for on Snapchat Stories? Did the big pop-up on your laptop screen bother you until you clicked this link? Or, none of the above? You found it out of general curiosity for how multiphrenia is impacting political participation in the District of Columbia. Sure.
So, why is examining the media important to understanding the minds of the masses? The answer is quite simple: there are trillions of new sources and news companies that make a profit based off of the clicks of the average American looking to feel satisfied with their knowledge on recent events. They track our likes dislikes, they track what movie we just saw, they track who we are. They know what we want to hear and how we want to hear it. For brief clarification, by “they” I mean the FBI agent hiding behind our computer screen. There is no thrill about learning something new about somebody because all of our facts can be found on our Tinder page or Instagram handle (by the way, mine is @alennazweiback feel free to subscribe to my content).
You probably already know about this stuff. You tell yourself you will take a cleanse from social media but you say that while taking a buzzfeed quiz on what Christmas sweater you should wear to your ex-girlfriend’s Friendsgiving. It’s okay, I understand, it’s not your fault. It’s the media’s. I am not being sarcastic.
The Environmentalist movement began to pick up speed in the District in the 1970’s. After World War II, the rise of technology posed a dramatic threat to environmental stability. New highways, housing developments, and airports enhanced the use of chemical waste in the air, leading to public concern regarding the protection of our Earth. In “The Environmental Movement” by Sam Hays, credits the increase in public attention to the idea of aesthetics. Hays states that “much of the initial interest concerned aesthetics; smoke made cities unattractive, and raw sewage floating in streams, such as the Potomac River in Washington, DC, was both unsightly and offensive to human smell.” Although concerns at first were almost superficial, the idea of the once beautiful Potomac River being destroyed by sewage absorbed the public’s attention. In July of 1970, the Gladwin Hill Special for The New York Times updated the public on the District of Columbia Water Quality Administration report on the Potomac saying that “‘[Sewage] sludge deposits have blanketed fish spawning grounds and destroyed the bottom aquatic life on which fish feed. Along the margins of the estuary sludge deposits have released obnoxious odors when uncovered by ebb tide. Floating sludge masses, lifted by gases of decomposition, add to other debris on the water’s surface.’” The general public became increasingly more concerned about the current state of their environment, and the popular demands lead to legislation.
Musician and activist, Pete Seeger, is amongst the general public who contributed to the masses concern for the environment. In the late 1960’s, Seeger and some friends built a replica of a sloop, a 106 foot long vessel that is known as the forerunner of the Environmentalist Movement. People all over the nation would listen for the group of men that traveled in this boat, who hoped to bring people closer to the issue of Pollution. The New York Times did a special interview on one of Seeger’s stops where Seeger explains his method saying “‘we’ve sailed for a year now up and down the river showing people what the river used to be, how it’s polluted now and what it can be,’ Mr. Seeger said, ‘but now we’re going to Washington because the problems of the American rivers can’t be solved by people like me who live on them. Only the Federal Government has the power to enact and enforce the laws that are needed.’”
It seems as though Peter Seeger’s request for the Federal Government to take control of the issue worked. Over the next two decades, the representatives both locally and domestically enforced new ideas to help counter pollution. The District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Act of 1984 and the Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1984 were the first big legislation of its kind to help address the issue of pollution. The Water Pollution Control Act of 1984 was created to counter the issue of water pollution in the District restore aquatic life in District waters for aesthetic enjoyment, for recreation, and for industry. The Hazardous Waste Management Act focused on the amount of hazardous waste was being released from companies operating on the riverbank, and offered fines against them if they went above a certain Hazardous levels.
This spurred great improvements regarding the wicked problem of pollution. By the 2000s, the District of Columbia passed over 10 bills of legislation to further the research and improvement of pollution in the Potomac. The District of Columbia Oil Liability Trust Fund, the District of Columbia Underground Storage Tank Fund, and the District of Columbia Water Pollution Control Contingency Plan are examples of a few that created optimism within the District. These bills sparked a major domino effect of political participation. More people began to notice the prominence of the issue and that our representatives were taking this seriously.
It did not last. Since 2010, only two solutions have been proposed about the issue that really should not be an issue anymore. One of which isn’t exactly a “solution” but more of an awareness factor. The DC Blue Plains Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant was a machine that would help the filtering of polluted water. The Potomac Riverkeeper Network hosts multiple events to aware awareness for pollution in the Potomac. Essentially, the Potomac Riverkeeper does what the Clearwater did.
Recently, a Potomac River coal plant was cited for illegal storage of toxic coal by the Department of Water and Power in Maryland. If you look it up, only one article will cover the news of it. No fine was cited against the company, despite its violations against the law. The sound of active citizens on social media is dead silent.
Within the last decade, there have been no solutions proposed and pollution in the Potomac has increased. Why is that happening? Why is the media not covering it? Why are people not getting involved? The answer is simple: if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. If people get their knowledge from the news, and the news does not cover issues like this, then the people will have no knowledge about this and not enforce push back on their politicians.
So what do we do moving forward? How do we fix this problem of the media affecting how we advocate change? I think I know the answer: we pollute the Potomac by throwing away our phones. Maybe then, people will start to notice the overflow of sewage and dead aquatic life that floats on the Potomac while they scream for the mercy of their iphone 10.
