Is disaster porn ruining quality journalism?

salon.com

The Boston bombing, the missing Malaysian airliner, a seemingly endless string of political scandals from Bridgegate to Rob Ford smoking crack...

These are the stories that dominate our news feeds. Headline after headline reels us in with the allure of breaking details and juicy exclusives. But is our news suffering?

Today one of my classmates led a discussion about the problem of "disaster porn," the product of news outlets sensationalizing stories to stand out in an overcrowded market.One online columnist compared the national coverage of the Boston bombing to that of a sporting event, citing the constant reel of graphic imagery and the intense focus on individual victims. He wrote, "I expect to hear an anchor say, “Our continuing coverage of this latest tragedy is being brought to you by the new Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Tacos!” And in news outlets' constant effort to provide us with the latest and greatest, quality journalism may be the biggest casualty.

The internet and social media have given us access to 24/7 news coverage, and more sources than ever compete for our attention. Media outlets focus on the most violent details of tragedies instead of giving us the full picture, making us less informed if we rely solely on the mainstream media. Speed is prioritized over responsible fact-checking, which can cause misinformation to proliferate. Sometimes it seems like news outlets are there to entertain more than inform, placing important worldwide events on the back burner in favor of Jimmy Kimmel's Sochi wolf prank or Miley's twerk at the VMAs.

But who's to blame? The competing news outlets, or the public's insatiable desire to stay in the know? Not entirely one or the other. Covering news is a business, and attracting business requires giving people what they want. Normally people prefer the juicy gossip over NPR, and the real-time nature of social media forces news outlets to get the information out as quickly as possible, even if it means risking inaccuracy.  The result is that there's often a trade-off between succeeding in today's mainstream news market and practicing quality journalism.

It's not that I think quality journalism is totally dead. I think it's alive and well in more niche markets that operate on smaller scales. But when it comes to mainstream national news, disaster porn is the norm. If people want the latest story and you aren't giving it to them, they'll just find it somewhere else.

That's why I think that when it comes to staying healthily informed, the burden is placed mainly on us. My generation grew up during the advent of social media, so we should know to be skeptical toward some of the news we get. Gone are the days of families crowding around their TVs at dinner to all get fed the same information. Today we're bombarded with conflicting messages on many different platforms, and it's our job to sort through the muck and not take every story at face value. And relying on our Twitter feeds and the mainstream media isn't enough if we want the full picture. We have to seek out more information on our own from reputable sources that get buried underneath the flashy headlines. I don't defend disaster porn and media sensationalization; It's just a reality that takes a little extra work to rise above.