Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin Z. Smith on February 8, 2012 at 16:46

Certainly an argument can be made that the media has gone to a higher level of sensationalism than ever before. Standards are always shifting and I think it's a hand-in-glove union between the media and the public. And e public seems to be driving the debate.

The media has given consumers a fairly steady diet of the grim, bad and the absurd. The public has become acclimated to these new standards of morality and common taste. As the norm shifts, so to does the expectation that news stories adjust accordingly to provide for the newly developed expectations of the public.
Twenty years ago violent video games couldn't be found so easily American stores shelves. But they are the norm today, and more graphic than ever. And, in America we advertise them on TV, so even if you don't want them, you're still subjected to the commercials showing people with guns shooting others.
The desensitization to violence has been a steady process and the media and public share equal blame. But, a greater accelerant has been applied - the public as journalists.
Where the media might hedge about running a video clip because of it's graphic content, someone in the public is certain to push that boundary. YouTube has given anyone with a video camera license to shoot footage without any levels of sanitation or editing for good taste. A videographer shooting for a local TV station will understand what and what isn't appropriate for public consumption. But a citizen with a camera phone most likely will not adhere to those same standards, choosing to air the entire footage in all it's sensationalistic details. And that amateur videographer will hailed as a true champion for truth and the media will be vilified for hiding the story.
Now the media has to start deciding how it will manage such coverage of hangings, fires, murders, etc. Moving forward.
The real question that presents itself to us is, are we in the media going to maintain our standards or are we going to allow ourselves to slide to the levels offered by this new all-access, all-exposed style or reporting?
In the case of Hussein, I don't need to see the actual hanging to get the information I need about the event. For some, who glide beneath the mainstream public, they will watch it, share it, comment on it and post it on another website.
That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it doesn't mean the media has to assume that role.

Kevin Smith
Ethics chair, Society of Professional Journalists
USA

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hanna McLean on February 9, 2012 at 8:49

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your reply. You make a good argument when you point out that the public is also to blame in the increasing appearance of sensationalism in the news. Coming from Seattle, I know exactly what you mean when you talk about the fact that even the advertisements in the US for things such as videogames contain violent and sensationalized images, making it impossible for the public to escape it, even if they wanted to. Basically, people have been born into this new culture of citizen journalism and shocking imagery and many do not know any better. This in turn causes them to hunger for dramatic stories that contain a 'shock factor' thus changing the marketing demands of the media, which forces journalists and news companies to change their way of reporting in order to keep up with the competition and satisfy their audience.

I think that sooner or later there will have to be a breaking point. The pendulum can only swing so far before it starts heading back in the other direction. While citizen journalism can be a useful tool for professional journalists to give excitement and a sharp angle to their story, they should not lose sight of the true purpose of journalism, which is, "to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society". It is like you said, you do not need to see the hanging of Saddam Hussein to know all the facts and understand the situation. There needs to be a balance between the actual facts and the shocking images that accompany those facts. If we go too far in either direction we risk either having to rely on gossip magazines for information or being left completely in the dark about what is going on around the world. At the moment, I think we are heading more towards the 'gossip magazine' side of the spectrum and I can only hope that news agencies and journalists will be able to hold their ground and focus on quality reporting before it is too late. Media professionals should try and find a way to make less sensationalized news attractive again. After all, we can only become desensitized to a certain point and after that, what happens then? There will be nothing left to 'impress' us so, does that mean we risk losing journalism and the news altogether? 

• ▶ Reply