Does the media give us too much information?

Cody Pomeray

I'm thinking of three recent cases, referencing what I think are the worst offending media outlets.

The case of the UK baby boy who appears to have died of starvation
The case of the French toddler who was sexually abused by both of his parents during a prison visit
The circumstances of the death of Elaine O'Hara

The information contained in these articles can be quite gruesome, and seems to serve no clear purpose except to horrify, and bristle, and therefore shift newspapers.

These stories, along with paedophilia stories more widely, often create unjustified hype in the community on the prevalence of sexual predators and other dangerous men and women. So it causes damage, without actually doing anything constructive.

As someone pointed out in another thread, it isn't that these stories shouldn't be covered at all. There is obviously some legitimate public interest in knowing that dating sites can be dangerous, or whatever.

But what do we get from publication of the minutiae like sex toys being taken into evidence? Or the minute details of a child's rape, like who held him down, and who recorded it? I suggest this does more damage and causes more paranoia than is justified, and serves nobody but newspapers, many of whom are otherwise facing financial armageddon.

Is it our own fault for not being responsible enough in what we buy?

xzanti

In some cases, such as the Magdalene Laundry survivors or grown victims of child abuse, you'll find the victims actually want the details to be made public, and I think they have every right..

But in the case of small children or deceased people who can't speak for themselves, I think it's distasteful and unnecessary to disclose sensitive details of the cases to the public..

So imho it really depends on the case..

Karl Stein

Morbid curiosity at its worst imho. I turn the TV over when those stories of horrific child abuse come on and rarely comment on child abuse threads. Too depressing and the details are unnecessarily sating morbid curiosity.

You see this phenomenon in the build up to war too; the palpable excitement of 'embedded' journalists and wartard viewer fapping themselves senseless at the thought of the impending orgy of violence and suffering.

You choose your leaders and place your trust
As their lies wash you down and their promises rust
You'll see kidney machines replaced by rockets and guns
And the public wants what the public gets
But I don't get what this society wants
I'm going underground, (going underground)

Wacker The Attacker

Relevant info should be reported.

Cody Pomeray

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Morbid curiosity at its worst imho. I turn the TV over when those stories come on and rarely comment on child abuse threads. Too depressing and the details are unnecessarily sating morbid curiosity.

I agree, and better not read the last few posts in the "Skeleton remains found in Rathfarnham" thread either then

I should have said boards, twitter et al aren't immune from this either. It's probably unfair to blame the conventional media when the user-controlled media is at it.

kneemos

Is the media a reflection of ourselves,i.e it reports what we want to read.

MadsL

We need a Misery forum.

Karl Stein

kneemos wrote: »

Is the media a reflection of ourselves,i.e it reports what we want to read.

I'm not convinced of that. The mainstream media is in the business of forming opinions.

Cody Pomeray

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The information contained in these articles can be quite gruesome, and seems to serve no clear purpose except to horrify, and bristle, and therefore shift newspapers.

It serves to increase the sense of moral panic that surrounds issues like child abuse, risk of abduction, and the general perceived decline in standards of individual morality and behaviour, unfairly increasing the perception of risk, and creating fear where none should reasonably be. Men, in particular, pay the cost of this kind of gratuitous scaremongering.

So it serves two purposes; sensationalism creates and perpetuates a market by feeding the voyeuristic tendencies of the perpetually outraged, and by feeding the perception of societal breakdown.

The public should be informed of terrible crimes, and of their rarity, but nothing is served by graphic descriptions of child torture and rape, or of heinous sex crimes.

This sort of reportage taps into the market that buys misery literature, slows down to peek at traffic accidents, and follows the trials of sensational criminals to glean gory details, and in a self-perpetuating spiral of horror, the more they play to the audience, the more gratuitous and sensational the reporting gets.