Discussions
Why does the news do this?
Posted by Anok • 8/29/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
The news - in print or otherwise often takes tragedies and atrocities, and outlines every abhorrent detail of the crimes committed.
Why? WHY?!
I do not need every gory detail to understand the seriousness, then heinousness, or perverse nature of the crime. I got it, killing a one month old baby is seriously wrong, and disgusting. I didn't need to know HOW the insane mother did it (thanks, mom, for telling me every gory detail from the article you read before I could shut you up).
Does anyone believe that revealing the details in this way does anyone any good? (Besides the news papers and TV shows who profit from it?)
Do you read stories with this type of detail, or do you skip it, like I do?
User Comments
-
Skippity do da to the next article.-
I knew we were kindred souls.
Seriously, sometimes i want to know what's happening legally with these stories, so I have to make someone else read it, then I censor it myself, and just get the legal stuff.
Ugh, what a pain. -
Anok, I do not read about local news at all. I never turn on the news channels either. I know what rape and murder is. I don't ned it fed to me, and that is what the local news usually shows.
WTF? What positive affect will it have on me by not reading or watching a "news" piece about pedophiles, murderers and rapists? -
I do think it's important to keep up on local news, though. I want to know how the violence is where I live (mainly because it has become increasingly violent - and I think it's about time to leave
). And I want to know how local elected leaders, police, and legal sectors are handling these situations.
it's important if you want to help work to create a community where this stuff doesn't happen.
But I don't need the details!
-
-
I read it if they have pictures.
Still, I agree that it's not necessary. I don't need to see the gory details, I just need the news.-
Exactly. (About just needing the news :D)
-
-
I can't say I noticed that level of detail in our local news.
What DOES bug me in reporting is when a tragedy occurs-- say a public bus overturns killing multiple people. We always end up hearing who got killed in order of the press's perceived Tragic-o-meter...
So, "A bus overturned killing 12 people, including a mother and a nun and three orphans."
I always end up thinking the thing is tragic enough all on its own...
But do we need to be putting a greater value on the death of certain folks over others in a time like this?-
Well it's definitely a solid way to get people's attention. Hearing about the death of a child outdoes the death of an elderly woman every time. (Not that it's fair mind you, but it is human to think that way)
But, oh dear God, I accidentally read one article years ago - I didn't' realize they would print so much detail, and once I read some details, I couldn't unread it, and I couldn't leave it hanging - I had to finish it.
it was about a child who's adoptive/foster parents killed her (there were several being reported at the time) and they hit EVERY detail of this toddler's horrendous death.
It triggers a visceral reaction that makes me violent. I wonder if this is what the paper wants? -
You wonder how they were even allowed to share that much information pending litigation, etc.
The paper does want reaction, sure. The more horrendous, the more memorable, the more top of mind they remain with their readers. -
It was information that the attorney's had told the reporters, so I'm assuming it was OK.
One of these days I'd like one of these tabloidesque attention grabbing "journalists" to get nailed for doing just that - screwing up a case for ratings
-
-
Cause it sells better than the specific contents of each parties platform?
-
True Dat.
You know what my mother said to me this morning after reading her local paper's word bytes about the DNC last night?
"I like Obama, I think he'd make a good president. But I won't vote for him."
Me:
Say whaaaaa?!?! ARE YOU INSANE?
Then she told me all about the dead baby. -
Gotta love it.
You think many folks up in CT are going to be swayed by Lieberman?
-
-
Over here, they skip the details and get right to the pictures of dead bodies and stuff. Not a good idea to watch local news channels at lunch time.-
Where is "over here", Friday?
-
Some of the news programs here do that. But not the papers. Thankfully.
-
ThriftSopRomantic:
"Over here" == Dominican Republic
Not that I'm for censorship, but there is such a thing as tact ... I was lucky to be able to eat and keep my food down after having seen a news report about eight people (including children) who were crushed by a landslide yesterday. Imagine of those people being your friend or relative and finding out about their death like that.
Anok:
Yeah, they do that both on TV and the paper, but the paper shows less. And I usually skip over the main news section. All it does is bring you down from whatever cloud you might be on at the beginning of the day and remind you that the world isn't so pretty -
Friday13- Understood. I've seen similar television newscasts here in the US. Thanks for sharing your locale!
-
I agree - I think it's terribly disrespectful for the grieving family members and friends to get so detailed...
-
-
Why does the news squander their airtime on rhetorical questions, or questions that do not deserve an answer.
"Will Biden have to hold back when debating Palin?" What? Why would he? They're both humans, and they're both entering the debate arena with an understanding of what they're getting into. Why should he "hold back"? Because she's a woman? How patronizing.
Stupid, stupid news anchors.-
Hi Voodoo
When you coming up to have a BBQ? I promise I won't make you watch stupid, stupid news anchors
-
I won't make it for the 7th, but shooting for a post-semester trip isn't impossible.
-
Oh, you'll be here just in time for the cold season then
-
Awesome.
-
-
You knew I would hop right on this one.
1. "If it bleeds it leads."
2. People are prone to want to focus on the negative. This is why I don't have as many viewer as I'd like for PP.
4. Edward Murrow was a great man to promote journalism. He was also a great man to promote what war looked like.
5. There is no public outcry to promote the positive.
You can promote the negative in a way that there are solutions
For instance Hurricane Katrina was horrific but positive came out of it
proofpositivity.blogspot.com/2008/08/proof-positivity-hurricane-katrina.htm...
Myanmar was terribly tragic and there were things that could be done regardless of the difficulty it took to bring help in
proofpositivity.blogspot.com/2008/05/time-for-disaster-relief-help.html
The news doesn't focus on the good that can be done. It's focus is Neilson ratings and the more negativity they bring the happier the viewers seem to be. As long as there are no complaints to them as to what's on the news they will not change their format of what you view.-
All solid points, Shirley.
Yup, maybe a nasty letter to the paper by hundreds of readers would do the trick. -
Won't work....Newspapers make their money from advertisers, not the readers. One week of sales doesn't even cover one day's worth of printing a newspaper. (I used to work for a newspaper).
-
Yeah, but if people aren't buying the papers, advertisers will go elsewhere.
-
The media's job is to listen to it's viewers. This is why I pull ideas from other people. Most of my links come from others. There are articles that timethief, nards, and even madamex have refered me to. Proof Positivity, my readers can have a voice on My Thoughts you don't get that opportunity. My Thoughts isn't journalism.
-
Ditto what Anok said. If you don't buy the paper who are you going to advertise to? God?
-
Won't work. Having a few hundred people (like that is possible to get that many people to do something like this ) write to the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, La Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch will do no more than get a laugh out of the marketing department.
Advertisers are so diversed now, it wold even make a dent on their bidding. -
I'm not talking about HUGE newspapers - I'm talking the local newspaper that published this horrendous story this morning.
They lose a few hundred readers? They's in trouble. -
Nothing happens overnite. Baby steps, patience, and campaining. Several years ago I was a member of an organization called City Year. We had 900 members at the time an we all sent President Clinton a post card to be a speaker at our convention. Guess what? He was a speaker in our convention because we took the nesassary steps and persistance.
-
oops...now I understand what you are saying.
But still, how do most people buy a newspaper? The go in mind to get a certain section, like the Sports of Living section, along with the sales ads. But what pushes them to buy the paper (such as candy bars in the check out lane) is what they see on the front page, which is ALWAYS going to have some sort of sensationalism. -
I know our paper is very much by subscription - they beat you over the head with it here.
But sure, sensationalized headlines I can deal with - not gory details of toddler's demises though. -
and I agree Anok!!!
That is one of the reasons I do NOT buy the newspaper anymore. I set up my reader for what is important and useful to me. I'll say it again...USEFUL...
Just last night my wife looked at me like I had a third eye, because I did not know who Lindsey Lohan was. But she thinks it's a waste of time that I can recite all of the past Presidents in the USA at a drop of the hat.
-
-
Once when I was in the UAE the local paper ran a pic of a female suicide bombing in Iraq. The pic had her severed head (complete with pieces of flesh sticking out like threads) and I thought to myself: Holy crap. Kids read this stuff!-
Exactly... something is not right about the whole of it.
-
-
What do Larry Izzo and Ron Burton have in common? See, I just pulled you in. Sensationalism doesn't have to be violent.
proofpositivity.blogspot.com/2008/08/proof-positivity.html
Shoot wrong spot! -
At one time reporters stuck to the who, what, where, why , when and how. That time has passed. Now what we see is reporters interviewing witnesses at the scenes of accidents and crimes before the police have even interviewed them. Now we are exposed on a daily basis to the horrific images of victims of crimes and accidents, let alone, wars that were previously only described in print media and only viewed in court rooms at trials. I can't see this leading to a good place.
Once we could rely on journalists to make an effort to report the events on as an objective a manner as possible. Today we see media bias right from the get go.
As far as being tired of the whole media hype and continuous sensationalization goes, we likewise have bloggers, who lack what it takes to be able to operate from an healthy ethical basis. There are legions of pseudo political reporters who have no first hand knowledge of the events they report. In essence, they are rehashing the news and injecting their own bias. Why is it that so few seem to be unable to behave responsibly and to act ethically?
I have blogged on this here onecoolsite.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/how-to-become-a-better-blogger-3-ethic...
(1) Be well informed about the subject
* Investigate the background;
* Get the whole story;
* Learn about both sides of the issue;
* Seek out competing points of view;
* Read what the experts have to say;
* Get the facts straight.
(2) Be honest
*Resist the temptation to distort truth for your own purposes.
* Avoid the use of slogans.
(3) Use sound evidence
*Be sure not to take quotations out of context, not to juggle numbers or statistics, and not to present unusual cases as representative examples. Use sources of information that are timely, objective and qualified and link to them appropriately.
(4) Employ valid reasoning
*Avoid such fallacies as making hasty generalizations, asserting causal connections where none exist, using invalid analogies, and pandering to passion or prejudice.
* A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an “argument” in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.-
well, we can thank the strength of technology and the stupidity of people who keep watching stuff like that.
-
Aw, gee, TT...yer no fun at all!
I mean, if someone does all of that not only will he have to crank over the old brain cylinders and actually THINK for a change, he'll give up all that exercise that comes from jumping to conclusions and running off at the mouth! -
Has anyone seen Idiocracy yet? The movies touches on the power of media and mass consumption coupled with decreasing IQ levels.
It's a funny movie, yet also a bit scary, and sad. (And relevant to what you are saying here). -
Anok; I saw Idiocracy a while back. It's sadly brilliant, unfortunately. -
Well, yeah, it's a bit too on the mark, if you know what I mean.
-
-
My pet hate about news reports in this country is the way they report foreign disasters, it will go something like:
"Todays top story 100 thousand killed in Asian earthquake one Briton slightly injured blah blah blah"
Why do they have to mention the one British guy who broke a foot?-
They do that locally for us, trying to find some desperate local connection to every national or international thing.
It gets pretty lame when they have to say, "And there was one person from Wheeling, West Virginia or Cleveland, Ohio involved." Sure, 1-3 hours away, just to try to bring a story "home" to us.
There's no need for it.
-
-
You know, a "friend" once sent through an email about a horrific crime committed against a little boy who was the same age when the crime was committed as my son was when the email was sent.
I read it, thinking she would NEVER send me something that bad, and had nightmares and anxiety problems for a very long time after that. It showed no thought on her part whatsoever and I think the news pulls the same thing. So many people are rubberneckers and ambulance chasers and will feed on that trash.
I think it would have been enough to say what the crime was and how it was committed with NO EXTRA DETAILS. I saw what you're talking about and just the headline made me click off - no way am I reading that crap.-
good analogy with the rubberneckers. Got delayed an hour on my way into work today because of the remnants of an accident that had already been cleared from the roadway for a solid 45 minutes. Everyone had to do thre "ooohh- look how splendidly horrible that is. I wonder if anyone died in the twisted metal? how delightful!" before moving on. -
YES! I think my initial reactions to stories like this are because I have a child, often at or near the same age.
It hits way too close to home.
I have hugged Punky like there was no tomorrow repeatedly today just upon hearing the tidbits of the story - not that hugging is a bad thing, but the thoughts that are going through my brain are what's bad.
That nagging what if what if what if in horrendous detail. -
I recall details about that twisted bitch in Texas that killed her 5 kids. I honestly had a hard time bathing the kids for a LONG TIME after that. I realize I may have an anxiety disorder, but really, who wouldn't nowadays with all the horror that circulates?
After that email (I was pregnant then, too so it probably hit me harder because of hormones) I cried for days and couldn't repeat why to my husband - poor guy was so lost!
-
-
They report and describe the gory details to elicit response. They do this to stir your emotions, to motivate you into action, to shape your opinion.
If they simply stated "baby murdered" you'd be saddened for a moment and move on, yet when they say "baby murdered as mother did this and that thing blah blah blah" it angers you on top of your sadness.. Sometimes that motivates people to action wether they choose to submit response to the article or express their opinion on the event elsewhere.. It sometimes prompts people to follow the story and push for action wether via legal channels, legislation or other.. It motivates people to become participant rather than remain passive and apathetic.. The article makes you FEEL and carry a more constant thought rather than merely ponder a glimpsing thought that lasts only a moment. The descriptive details entice further discussion and make the story harder to forget. It creates a lasting impression.-
I think that may be the thought process behind it....and yet - it times past people seemed to be a lot more active and a lot less apathetic about crimes such as these WITHOUT the gory details.
Today, with all of the details and pictures to boot, no one is doing anything anyway.
I'm thinking that it's not working. Because honestly? My initial reactions are:
A) Find neglectful mother/person and kill them
B) Hug my own child
C) move away from crazy places with crazy people.
Obviously I have little problem with what most people call "vigilantism" but it's still not helping people to print stories like this. -
@Anok - I have the same reactions in the same order.
-
At least I'm not the only one!
Whew! -
If your initial reaction is to move away from crazy people, why did you invite me (of all people) over for a barbecue?
-
-
I prefer just the facts ... but don't really mind the details. Mostly I don't think the details are necessary but obviously they sell papers/news otherwise they wouldn't do it. It's all about the all mighty dollar.-
Yeah, but gory details? *shudder* I don't wanna know!! Mommy make it stop!!
Seriously though, what are the papers like up your way? Same thing? -
Well, papers will often give more detail than TV news, but nothing I've found to be disturbing. But my tolerance level for that stuff is pretty high.
I know when I go to the States I'm surprised by the local TV news coverage. It's pretty over the top with the crime coverage and 'details' as you say. It's not like that here. -
Maybe I will move to Canada after all
It's too much lately. I can handle a lot but ugh, the TV's don't even hit the "high points" of goriness for some of these stories.
I will have nightmares tonight from this stupid story today. *sigh*. -
Well, as an example, remember a month ago when that guy was beheaded on a bus up here? Well...they gave lots and lots of warning before the news segment. And gave time if you wanted to turn the channel. So, while some of the details were disturbing at least they gave us plenty of warning. And it was a serious warning.
-
Yeah, we get the obligatory "Some material may be inappropriate for certain viewers" then WHAM. ACK!
-
Hey, Anok, we don't even get that. Consider yourself lucky
-
I don't think I would watch the news where you live, honestly.
What do you think their reasoning is for that? -
Ah, I don't know, really. I don't bother with local TV, anyway. It's mediocre at best.
-
-
I say give me every brutal detail, I want to hear everything and know everything because Im gonna solve the case myself. I need to know all the details how else am I gonna be able to become desensitized enough to watch these new torture-porn gross out flicks on tv and theater. Obviously I need the gruesome details in the news I read and watch. It makes me a stronger person to know how a person died with a second by second recap of the events. [Insert Sarcasm here]
buzz buzz -
-
A good book on this subject is "How to Watch TV News" by Neil Postman; www.amazon.com/How-Watch-News-Neil-Postman/dp/0140132317
-
Cool, thanks.
-
-
Time to censure the news reporters. Time to bring back common decency and more uplifting news. Even the weather channel is one great tragedy after another. I usually watch PBS or HGTV or The Food Channels. I want beauty in my life. I am so exhausted from all of the worry there is going on now, in these times.-
Thats why I watch Sesame Street, do they even still give that? Wait, seeing Oscar the Grouch being treated unfairly because he lives in a trash can is pretty depressing too. He is the poorest puppet on Sesame street, no one is helping him.
buzz buzz -
I love PBS. And discovery Channel.
Mythbusters rawk! -
I love the Discovery Channel, History Channel, and National Geographic Channel. Those are the three channels that I watch the most. Those three can make even bad news interesting, they can make watching grass grow interesting, haha.
-
Sometimes I watch The Discovery and The History Channels, too. Thanks for reminding me.
-
-
Why would anyone like the discovery channel or the History channel? They should call it the shark channel and the Hitler channel. It's full of documentaries aimed at the lowest common denominator, I'd much rather watch a documentary by the BBC.
-
They have blocks of time dedicated to one topic at a time - like "shark week" for Discovery channel or "Egyptian week" on the history channel. They air "Blue Planet" a fantastic documentary about the world's oceans, creatures, and they also have the "Earth" edition - they air myth busters, how it works, and other shows of that nature.
The history channel covers a wide variety of history, and it has it's own shows as well as documentaries. One show is great, called "Surviving History" it documents and tries to mimic all of the devices used for various purposes throughout out history. (OK, it's usually torture, but still).
I caught one program about the little ice age, which I had never known even existed. Very cool indeed. -
Yeah Blue planet is a BBC documentary 90 per cent of the rest is rubbish that just goes over old ground.
-
I like History Channel because it occasionally has a good show on, but Ice Road Truckers? That's not historic! They've sold out to their advertisers.
I need to get satellite so I can get the Science channel; and even then it will probably be boring shit. -
Yeah, Ice Road truckers and Deadliest Catch are turnoff's for me, definitely.
But I like me the rest of their shows
-
-
Well. its the news lol. what else are they suppose to do. people watch the show for the perverse details that you dont want to knwo about. people become interested when they are able to know more and know everything. people believe that they have the right to know infromation about anything and they want to know all the little details. if there werent those details news would be news. -
Well we live in sadistic world where most people want every little detail, if they didnt they wouldnt show it because ratings would drop. Why do people by tabloid crap, for the sme reason. -
Shock! Sensationalism! Basic journalism. Amen.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
