I was reading an article on Slate today about the inevitable media backlash in regards to the overcoverage of the Virginia Tech shootings, and I came across this gem of an anecdote.
The gold standard for journalistic insensitivity was established in the 1960s by an unnamed British TV reporter who was trawling for news at a Congo airport. According to foreign correspondent Edward Behr's 1978 memoir, the Brit walked through the crowd of terrified Belgian colonials who were evacuating, and shouted, "Anyone here been raped and speaks English?"In Praise of Insensitive Reporters
Talk about chutzpah. Even more absurd than this question is what I imagine to be an even more absurd response as a newly raped Belgian lady makes her way to the reporter.
"Why indeed," the Belgian lady would say, "I have been raped. It's been such a dreadful experience. I would much rather not go through that experience again but it's all been worth it now that my face shall be on television. Hi mom!"
But yeah, in response to the Slate article, I do think oversaturation and sensationalism by the media does create a narcotizing effect. I do not necessarily mean this in the sense that we have become desensitized to violence but that we have become too sensitized to it. Let's be honest, it was only a matter of time before a mad gunman would go on a rampage yet again. It was only a matter of time before the media would offer 24/7 coverage of it. It was only a matter of time before we would all be in front of our TV sets looking to discover the next detail.
Many of us are unfeeling towards events like these because, as tragic as they are, we know it's going to happen again.
3 comments:
I'm not wishing this to happen, but what if a sociopath started targeting news reporters who were reporting live coverage, and assasinating them as the nation watched? Would the media send more reporters into the field to reap this gold vein of news coverage, or would the news media be shy to step out since they're being targeted, or would the latter happen only after "x" number of media reporters were shot?
-papa, I vote for the latter. In the end, self interest rules the day and actually accounts for why certain news events are not covered in as much detail.
Take Darfur, for example. There's a genocide going on. I'm not saying this is the reason why there's little coverage about this atrocity, but I'm pointing out that it could be a factor.
I am with you Christopher. I am shocked at this culture of greed. Darfur will not bring in the bucks so who cares right? It's a damn shame!
As for that reporter........!!!!
Post a Comment