Newsmakers always defend their choices to report horrific events in great detail on the public's desire for the more grotesque aspects of a story.
However a study for the UBC School of Journalism's Feminist Media project may show that this circular logic is, in fact, fallacious.
The study, conducted by the Mustel Group, found that 52% of the 806 adults surveyed (by telephone) said they were interested in media coverage of the case. The study also showed that most B.C. residents believe news organizations should refrain from reporting salacious details of Robert Pickton's murder trial, while one in five say the media have reported "too much" about the case already.
What is interesting is that the poll showed that of those surveyed about the media's coverage of the Pickton trial, three-quarters (75%) believed the media had responded responsibly in covering the case. However 56% of the same respondants believe the media should restrict violent and sexually explicit details that arise at the trial, compared with 37% who believe the public should know as much detail as possible. The remaining 7% did not know.
The interesting component of this study is that there is at least half of those participating in the consumption of media are, in fact, not clamouring for the ghastly details. This should fore-warn media outlets -- perhaps it is not the sensational aspects of a trial, situation or case that draws half their readers, but, perhaps other aspects of journalism, such as insight, analysis, story-telling and, hopefully, alternative perspectives and solutions.
Good point to be aware of in a day and age where media of all types must compete for loyal listeners, readers and viewers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
THANK YOU for this article, RK. My girlfriend and I have been complaining between us about how sleazy the media is getting, with no shortage of grisly events to report on. A homeless man's dead body is found "frozen solid." (Edmonton Journal) One of Saddam's aides, when hanged, has his "Head snapped off." (Edmonton Sun) Graphic details probably don't serve any purpose other than sensationalism, and that is just cheap. Cheap, and a tad pathetic, because it suggests the writer is either fixated on the wrong aspects of the story or is struggling to meet some quota on length. [Aside: I would like to see the complete shut-down of the Edmonton Sun. It's an idiot parade that is feeding misinformation and alarmism.]
Ignoring the gore would be to ignore the trial, and to ignore the trial we are ignoring the victims.
Post a Comment