“If it bleeds, it leads,” or so goes the popular journalism adage. Some journalists detest such a description of their art, while some wholeheartedly agree that compelling headlines come from tragedy.
And if it bleeds, it leads, is true, the more blood, the better: or at least, the more likely to be published. The media calls it impact or significance and it is one of the criteria used to choose what deserves coverage and what doesn’t. Aside from impact, those in charge of deciding what is newsworthy also weigh timing (when the event occurred,) proximity (nearness to the audience,) human interest (emotional appeal) and prominence (who is involved.) To have just one of these, makes a story newsworthy, but to have more makes it more likely to be entertained by the public.
From the eyes of the public, all news would seem to be bad news. Television stations run car accidents, fires, deaths and crimes before the story of the local man who tutors kids for free.
“What do you feel you see more about in the news: good or bad?”
Newspapers print headlines about terrorist attacks, murder trials and natural disasters on page one and bury the stories about the heroes in these situations around page seven.
Magazines are known for resorting to tabloid status, because who doesn’t want to read about Brad and Angelina? Who is going to read the headline that says “New courses added to 2013-2014 curriculum” if “Sex ring exposed in courthouse; 4 arrested,” is printed near it? Oh, no one?
However, the media is not entirely to blame. Polls done by major news outlets have found that more people respond to the coverage, if it is negative. And since the media is in the business of readership, selling “what the people want,” is a necessary element in choosing their lineups.
“What are you more likely to read?”
The coverage of the recent Boston bombing, explosion in Waco, Texas and shooting at MIT brought this issue to light for many people. Some called the coverage choices unfair, biased or sensationalized.
News headlines surrounding the case in Boston are still running. Now, they focus on the family of the dead suspect, since he can no longer contribute to the stories.
“What do you think about the coverage of the Boston case?”
The explosion in Waco got 30 seconds of airtime in a breaking news slot when it happened, a headline the following morning and very little attention since. The fact that more people were killed in this accidental explosion is ignored.
“How did you hear about the Waco explosion?”
The shooting at MIT could have been missed entirely and was by many people. After 2012, a record year for school shootings, the choice to practically disregard these lives was irresponsible at best.
“What have you seen about the MIT shooting?”
But what is fair coverage? Would it be giving the same amount of airtime to a story about a county fair as a deceased soldier? Did the cotton candy really leave that much of an impression?
The problem with the concept of fair coverage is that everyone brings biases to their work, despite the effort to remain objective. Even choosing what to award time or space in one’s publication reveals bias. A story about a child who was rushed to the hospital because of abuse may seem less worthy of coverage than a terrorist attack on a government, if the press releases come in at the same time. That doesn’t make the child’s story unimportant, just less pressing.
While it is true that needing to decide between two stories rarely happens, when it comes down to it, not everything can be covered. There isn’t enough time, space or reporters to handle such a job.
Love, hate, war, peace, crime, and punishment sell, so the media covers these instances in their spheres. The various outlets pass along the information they attain in the most “unbiased” way possible, by remaining detached, avoiding the use of I, me, we and other inclusive pronouns, telling stories devoid of adjectives and letting the sources speak for themselves.
While it would be true to say that bad news is ever-present and the good news is ignored, it would be wildly fanciful to say that the media goes out looking for tragedy to report on. Crime, death, danger, excitement and celebrity sell, so that is what the media tells. Stories of heroism and charity have their times, and call it unfair if you will, but you want to read about the fires, floods, famine and disease; so they are covered.
This is a challenge, faced everyday by the media; to decide what the public wants, needs and expects to hear. Tell me, what headlines would you run? Hate crimes at a local college or a downtown fire that claimed five lives? A car accident or a high school student, who received an award? An interview with a suspect in a high profile crime or a convenient store clerk who was robbed? More importantly, which would you read?
