For years, the media has been a very useful means to getting important information out to the masses. Without the news, we citizens would be deprived of the basic right and freedom of information. While this is true, it is important to ask how far is too far?
These days there are hundreds of thousands of news sources, and with the increased use of smartphones and social media, the lines can become blurred when it comes to relaying important news, or treating people that create acts of terror as celebrities.
The question is, and will always be: Does the media treat criminals like celebrities, or is it simply that the media is warning us all of what events are happening? This article is here to create an open discussion of the topic. Here are a few things to consider when thinking about this question.
1. News Sources
Some of the confusion comes from the need for news sources to stay updated. Because a lot of social media is used as a platform for news sources, this can create a need for speed or competition for different news sources to update and come out with the content.
The days of the printed newspaper are slowly dwindling, it doesn’t take a week to write, edit and print articles anymore; and it can all be done online now. Whenever an act of terror is committed, news sources are always scrambling and in a rush to get the news out, that sometimes it can become more important to get the newest learned piece of information instead of verifying what is a fact.
For example, Fox News has been questioned for years of their true newsworthiness. According to politifact.com, here are the percentages of statements made on FOX ranging from true through false and the numbers are surprisingly higher on one end of the spectrum than the other (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/).
2. Celebrity Status
Type in “Orlando shooting” on Google, and see how many results come up, over thousands, guaranteed. How about the Boston Massachusetts bombing back in 2013? Of course, there are many more examples, but for the article’s sake, let's stick to these examples.
Terrorist attackers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev used pressure cooker bombs killing 3 civilians and injuring hundreds. Of course, there is expected to be a lot of coverage on such a tragedy, but sometimes there is a line that has to be drawn.
For example, in 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was featured on the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine. A full head shot is depicted of Dzhokhar in big bold letters, “The Bomber: How a Popular, Promising Student was Failed by His Family, Fell into Radical Islam and Became a Monster.”
Keep in mind that this is the same magazine issue that features celebrities such as, Willie Nelson, Jay-Z, Robin Thicke, and Gary Clark. Why is that? The more controversial, the better the ratings, the better the ratings, the more sales, the more sales, the more revenue generated. But at what cost? At the cost of glorifying such acts of terminism. There is a possibility that someone in the world could view Dzhokhar in a positive light because he received so much attention. People idolize those that are ‘celebrities”.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of a celebrity is, the state of being famous or celebrated; a person who is famous. How does someone become well known in society (in other words, how does someone become famous); the media.
On the contrary, the Rolling Stone article gives the opportunity for people to see that Dzhokhar was not only ‘the guy that contributed to the Boston bombing,” he is human just like the rest of us. That he had life battles and many obstacles just like the average Joe or common Susie. In a way, this is an unbiased approach in discovering the life of Dzhokhar.
3. Too Much Coverage, Not Enough Info
Just like the Boston bombing brothers, the recent Orlando massacre has received a massive amount of news coverage. Omar Mateen gunned down Pulse, an LGBT nightclub and it has been said that it has been one of the worst attacks in the United States since 9/11 (stated by CNN).
Without a doubt, this is a tragic situation, and of course, the public has the right to know. The argument is that during the time the shooting first began, there was a lot of news coverage, without a lot of detail. Many stations did hourly coverage on the tragedy, where the surrounding police would be asked questions, and live coverage would be provided.
There is no need to do a lot of coverage on a topic that is so negative if there is not more information filling in the empty spaces. Those spaces should be filled by journalists that have the concrete knowledge or additional information of what has occurred.
Now that there is more information about Omar being questioned by the FBI twice in the past, more information about Omar’s erratic behavior leading up to the months of this mass shooting, more information about Noor Zahi Salman’s, Omar’s second wife involvement with this act. Days later, there is a lot more information out in the public, as it should be.
Slowly but surely questions can be answered and the dots can be connected. This is the time where the media should shed awareness on the situation, not when there are more questions than there are answers.
If there is not enough information on an event that has happened, the information should be found out before the media has the opportunity to exploit.
Again, a lot of people will either agree or disagree, this article is meant to be a spark or flame for conversation. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, just a difference of opinion. Please respond with thoughts. Is the media used as a means to tell the news? Or has the media made it easier to idolize acts of terrorism?
