The sensationalism dilemma

Though the word itself often carries a negative connotation, according to Moeller, sensationalism can be a powerful tool against compassion fatigue. But there is another side to the argument as well. According to a 1996 study by Kinnick, Krugman, and Cameron that explored compassion fatigue and its underlying causes, it was argued that an emphasis on the sensational is actually a news practice that contributes to compassion fatigue.

How do we reconcile these conflicting arguments? I personally feel this is an extremely interesting topic that would carry with it a whole new research process to determine the effects of sensationalism in different contexts. On the one hand, Kinnick, Krugman and Cameron make a valid point in stating that sensationalism may actually contribute to desensitization. Because there is a preponderance of disasters, and disaster coverage in today’s world, overly sensationalizing issues may trigger spectators to automatically turn away, which would reduce reactions to coverage.

On the other hand, sensationalism might be what is needed, for the very same reasons. Because disaster coverage is so commonplace, unless the news is actually a step up from the norm, it won’t capture people’s attention. Sensationalism might be required nowadays to truly grip an audience, and induce a reaction.

These are but my personal views on the matter, and it would take extensive research into the various psychological factors at play, not to mention the intricate complexities of the context of the spectator to determine what would actually occur. For the rest of this blog, I will explore a few examples of alternate representations of the tragedies I focused on, and the implications of their possible sensational strategies.