Shock and Awe Journalism: How We Feed the Panic Machine
This guest post was written by Andie P., who is currently enrolled in classes through onlineuniversities.net with the goal of receiving her sonogram tech certification.
The outcry is universal. People want less sensationalism. Viewers demand more from their news other than fire, explosions, violence, and misbehaving of celebrities and politician. What do the people then receive? Shock journalism.
How can there be such a disconnect between what people say they want from their news outlets and what the news outlets offer? Are journalists so infatuated by the shock that they report on only the sensationalism without any regard to viewers? Or are there mixed signals from people demanding more newsworthy stories and what they eventually choose to view?
Economics of Journalism
Shock journalism is great for the news industry; it's inexpensive and quick to turn into a news story. Journalists can even use information from a previous story to create a news story to be aired at a later time. This recycling of news is ideal for journalists required to meet a 24-hour news cycle. Previous stories are restructured quickly and with little expense to the network, maximizing profits while still fulfilling the obligation of provided viewers with something new.
Sharing news among networks is also prevalent in the industry. While there is an appearance that journalists are battling one another to get the most exclusive story, notes, sound clips, and images are actually all shared in a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch my back" gesture. According to the University of Southern California-Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, collaborative partnerships commonly occur amongst news gatherers to extend financial resources. Journalists share information to ensure good favor with other journalists on the next event. This action limits the amount of coverage with all journalists using the same information.
Why Viewers Tune In?
The shallow, mass-produced shock journalism stories stimulate just enough interest to keep people captivated. Christopher Peterson and Martin E.P. Seligman, in the article "Values in Action (VIA) Classifications of Strengths," explain that as shock journalism intrigues a viewer, the story is incomplete. The viewer is left with an empty feeling. Rather than being turned away by such a draining story, the viewer acts in contrary; they are supplied with such limited information that they demand more. Journalists only report enough to keep viewers interested. Viewers are then coerced to incorporate their own analysis in an attempt to complete the story, but they're never satisfied because they don't have the real answers. When the viewer becomes an active participant in the new story, journalists are sufficiently doing their job in shock journalism. Viewers that are active participants signify a want for more, even though more will never be enough.
A recent example of shock journalism is the proliferation of Charlie Sheen in the news. After last year's accusation of threatening his wife, Brooke Mueller, with a knife, the actions of Sheen continue to dominate the headlines. Sheen's $500 thousand splurge on escorts and drugs, and his erratic behavior on the "Two and a Half Men" set has been well documented by journalists. A report on the troubles of a celebrity like Sheen is the ultimate example of shock journalism. People's interest is quickly grasped because it is a celebrity story; Sheen's troubles only encourage the viewers' attention. The reoccurrence of Sheen in the news supplies journalists the opportunity to incorporate past occurrences in recent news events. Viewers insist a resolution as to why Sheen, with so much money and popularity, is behaving in such a manner. Journalists continue feeding the viewer's intrigue with just enough information while supplying little resolution.
Shock journalism is a self-perpetuating engine that feeds off of human curiosity and want for every event to be resolved. Only when viewers realize that shock journalism offers nothing more than information scraps will journalists begin reporting a news story that is as in-depth as it is important.
0 comments:
Post a Comment