MTV thread spinoff: negative press

[peachy]

I haven't done a lot of posting here so far, but I've done a ton of reading, and I've seen no threads that attempt to address the real reasons why the media loves to kick Greek organizations when they're down, seek out what isn't there, or make mountains out of molehills.

Why are GLOs such fodder for the media? I think that it’s because GLOs meet the following criteria… all a recipe for press that sells…

1. They have selective membership.
2. They have members-only activities. ("What is Susie doing while her parents shell out to get her a good education?").
3. The members who are most in the public eye are college-age, often under the age of 21.
4. The meaning of their names and symbols are secret.
5. The majority of their non-private activities are not readily noticeable (study hours, leadership training, paperwork, communicating with alumni, etc.), so outsiders don't see the work, and the responsibilities and benefits of membership are lost on them.

Let's consider reports of athletic teams who haze. They have selective membership (you must have the athletic skills to play), they have a private activity (the hazing) and many members are under 21. But... the team name and symbols have no private meanings, and the majority of their activities are familiar to outsiders (team practice) or even open to outsiders (games, award ceremonies), so outsiders see the work and have fun attending the activities to cheer on their team.

This is just one example, but it seems to me that because GLOs meet ALL of the above criteria, the media can't help but jump on anything negative. Anything positive is treated like a fluke.

Unfortunately, because the above criteria are inherent to most GLOs, it is possible that the media's attitude will never change. In response to any unfair press, GLOs quickly (and rightfully!) point out that these are exceptions to the rule, and that GLO membership is highly beneficial. Sadly, this "band-aid response" never seems to work.

There may be gaping holes in this theory, but it's true that GLOs get singled out above and beyond all other fraternal groups (The Elks, The Moose, biker clubs, scouting, you name it).

So, if my criteria theory is correct, then what can be done to change the attitude of the media, without sacrificing who we are, what we do and what we stand for? "Band-aid responses" don't work... so what will? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.