A semi-coherent thought about the media.

[Zhukov]

I've been sitting on this one for a while. Kept having to wait because it relates to mass shootings and I didn't want to post it in the immediate aftermath of an actual mass shooting, but said shootings kept happening. I'm sure I shouldn't find that funny, but damn if there isn't something grimly amusing about it.

Anyway.

Here's a mercifully short, lousy quality Youtube video with a hyperbolic title from some tiny channel you've never heard of.


I stumbled upon it months ago and it kinda stuck. It makes a succinct point.

There's no denying that whenever a mass shooting goes down there is a painfully undignified media scramble for who can get the best camera angle on the blood spatters, who can find the most wrenching witness interview and who can be first to air some shaky cellphone footage.

Many object to this practice. Some find it insensitive. Others say the attention encourages future acts.

However.

Imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that you had two news channels covering the same ugly event.

The first channel tries to be dignified and respectful and helpful. They report the basic facts, they don't identify the shooter, they carefully avoid speculation and provide some phone numbers for those concerned for friends and relatives who may have been involved.

The second channel does the opposite. They get every bit off footage they can find and loop that shit for hours, pausing and zooming in on the nasty bits. They scream the shooter's name to the heavens, read his school reports and Facebook posts and send reporters to stake out his mother's house. They bring in excitable experts to furiously speculate on the shooter's motives. In short, they run a circus.

Which channel do you think would enjoy better ratings? Which behaviour do you think would be rewarded?

(Hint: I'm implying that it would be the second one.)

I suppose what I'm asking here is should media outlets give their audiences what they demonstrably want or should they do "the right thing" against their audience's preferences and at their own expense?

 

[Pseudonym]

I believe that in my country the media have some standards and try not to report in too sensationalist a way on people butchering their families or such tragic events. (mass shootings are very rare here) They don't want to encourage copycats or do things in bad taste. The thing is that as long as everyone does this and you aren't a complete vulture it is relatively easy to constrain yourself. But in some places it is believed that any sort of common understanding for the sake of common decency is basically a cartel and the natural, 'free' way of running a market is to encourage everyone to be a complete vulture.

As for what audiences want, I know that I don't pay attention to stories about murder and such things when I see them in the newspaper. If the only point of the story is that a particular person did something very evil with no largescale consequences than I don't care. I also don't have a tv so I might not be the target audience for your hypothetical newschannels.

 

[Namehere]

GOOD MORNING VIETNAM! A bomb did NOT go off this afternoon, killing civilians and US service personnel... Right?

Quote, the Rifleman: "You don't mess up right and wrong, Micah!" If you aren't laughing, you aren't thinking. People often do the wrong thing for all the right reasons.

If this is some backhanded apology/excuse for the media's handling of the recent debacle otherwise known as the United States, it isn't flying.

Finally... Often when handed big boxes or tiny envelopes of classified information media organisations - we no longer have news - consult with the responsible government offices. Often the media organisations can be 'convinced' to withhold information critical to criminal justice investigations from the public until that information can be used by law enforcement.

Do we seriously need to no platform Nancy Grace? And who, instead of producers, would dictate what guests detract or contribute to that apparently desirable yet deplorable circus?

If the US still produced news, I'd say that's what those networks should be doing. They don't do that anymore, they make 'news media' the 'drink' of news. You know, it's similar to apple juice but its apple drink. It's like news but its news media. Censoring news media is more meaningless then lipstick on a pig. In fact if you were to spend time cleaning it up... you'd just lend it more credibility then it deserves.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

In short, the problem with the media isn't those damn pesky feminists, liberal bias, religious bigotry, islamophobia or islamophilia depending on who you ask, lack of journalistic ethics or even the lack of nuance. They all stem from the same bastardly source: sensationalism. From the high towers of establishments like CNN, The Guardian and New York Times, to the lowest, most abominable, revolting shitfucks like Steven Crowder or The Young Turks, they all circle the great Meccha of sensationalism. The need for more views, more attention, more shocking headlines, stronger differences of opinion, LOUDER SHOUTING, greater dismissal and division etc. etc. As one Calvin and Hobbes comic once put it: "Enmity sells". No one with any established viewership has the balls to be boring anymore. And so they let the propagandists, genuine misanthropes, insane people, egomaniacs (seriously, fuck Steven Crowder with a razor wire baseball bat) and what have you have more space.

Spoiler: Who's Steven Crowder?

An abominable shitstain on humanity wearing the skin of a conservative political commentator and """comedian""" on Youtube. He combines the soapboxery of MovieBob, the self satisfaction of the worst internet feminist stereotypes and the smugness, bluster, contrarianism and egomania of Milo Yiannopoulos without having the redeeming qualities of any of them. He's like a worse Glenn Beck who genuinely thinks he's informing people instead of just putting on a show.

 

[Thaluikhain]

On the one hand, the way the media runs with these is very irresponsible. On the other, they do that because it's what the audience wants. If you want a better media, a better audience would be the way to go about it.

 

[Parasondox]

Watch Nightcrawler staring Jake Gyllenhaal and boy it will make you think twice about the news and it's reporting style.