Final Thoughts
In my research paper, I presented a contradiction of sorts by quoting both Moeller, who propagated sensationalism as a tool to combat compassion fatigue, and Kinnick, Krugman and Cameron, who stated that sensationalism can cause compassion fatigue, without resolving the inherent conflict between their arguments.
Both sides present valid arguments, and there does not seem to be an overbearing consensus leaning towards either side. A 2007 paper titled ‘Are Sensational News Stories More Likely to Trigger Viewers’ Emotions than Non-Sensational News Stories? A Content Analysis of British TV News.‘ in the European Journal of Communication studied whether sensational news stories are “intrinsically more likely to elicit emotional responses in audiences than other TV news stories.”. The results showed that “news stories traditionally classified as ‘sensational’ – a term that implies a dramatic and therefore emotion-arousing imperative – do not necessarily contain more emotionally arousing features than other types of news story.”
While this paper may bolster Kinnick, Krugman and Cameron’s argument, a more in-depth analysis, one not possible in a blog-post, would have to be conducted, along with a plethora of other research, in order to reach any form of concrete solution. At present, the two examples of alternate coverage of gang-rape that I explored serve more to lead us to wonder about what aspects of media coverage affect us the way they do, and why.This raises the big question about the influence the media wields over us, and how to reconcile that with our increasing awareness of this power. As we become more aware of the role the media plays in shaping our reactions, do they have to step it up yet another notch, and ensure that they stay one step ahead to continue to wield that influence in a responsible way?
Sources: Uribe, R., & Gunter, B. (2007). AreSensational’News Stories More Likely to Trigger Viewers’ Emotions than Non-Sensational News Stories? A Content Analysis of British TV News. European Journal of Communication, 22(2), 207-228.