Our Desire to Flinch: News Television and its Portrayal of Shocking Phenomena

Sylvia Butler

Documentary Practices Final Paper

Joanne Klein

May 6, 2005

I still have the graphic image in my head of the “Shock and Awe” U.S. bombings on Baghdad two summers ago. I recall switching through the various news stations, such as CNN and Fox News, each of them with the same panoramic image of Baghdad in the evening, with bright bursts of light signifying a missile or bomb detonation. I found these images to be so appalling, and the fact that we were watching the destruction of a city in real time on our television sets to be so disturbing, that I thought it necessary to investigate America’s obsession with sensationalism and violence. Television is one of the most important socializing agents in Western culture. It remains the most dominant source of news and public affairs coverage, influencing which issues we as citizens discuss and sometimes act upon. The reality depicted in news assists in shaping our perceptions of the world. Theories of journalism state that the proper goal of news reporting should be public enlightenment, so that citizens might engage in self-governance. Social responsibility theory of the press inscribes that news media are obligated to present information that will “enlighten audiences and support their efforts at self-governance” (Slattery, Doremus, & Marcus, 2001). However, sensationalism has long been recognized as a part of broadcast news. Some theorists argue that sensational news coverage is actually socially acceptable and useful at times, perhaps through reflecting the community’s need for social order, and through maintaining society’s moral boundaries. In this paper, I will examine the various attitudes taken towards the notion that sensationalism in the media transforms the important and sometimes horrifying events into “cinemas of attractions,” showing them off as spectacular phenomena, and that this leads to the desensitization and acceptance to violence on the parts of the audience.

The first war introduced to the television camera was the Vietnam War, entering into the homes of regular Americans, bringing with it a new intimacy with death and destruction. The images of war and death are shocking, which Sontag (2002) argues is exactly the point of such images. Those who present them to the public intend for them to arrest attention, startle, shock, and surprise. Sontag (2002) states that this phenomenon is “part of the normality of a culture in which shock has become a leading stimulus of consumption and a source of value.” The desire to view bodies in pain is very similar to the desire to see naked bodies. This appetite for the shocking is not a recent event. Christian art contains depictions of hell satisfying both the urge to see bodies in pain and naked. It is the pleasure in flinching that drives the desire to see uncomfortable scenes. However, real horror is different from the fictional horror of religious paintings. It combines the sense of shock with shame at images of real atrocities. Because the majority of us will do nothing to change the situations which caused the atrocities we are viewing, we become voyeurs, whether we wish to look at it like that or not (Sontag, 2002). A viewer sitting in their living room, witnessing violent and graphic war images on the news, has a unique perspective on war, for the TV apparatus has “provided visual access to this menacing and unknowable, destructively powerful device, but from a position that ensure[s] a fetishistic pleasure: close enough for viewers to appreciate its threatening splendor, yet far enough away to both preclude any real danger and maintain prolonged visual contact” (Williams in Gaines & Renov, 1999, p.307). Sontag concludes her critique of the media’s portrayal of violence with the notion that the agonies of war, thanks to television, have “dissolved into a nightly banality.”

Sontag makes it clear to the reader that she feels that exposure to the media’s sensationalizing of war leads to a lack of compassion on the part of the audience, who no longer feel as though war is a momentous, earth-shattering experience, negative or positive. Durbin (2003) emphasizes this point when he states that it is not only “what you hear from the media, it’s how many times you hear it” as an explanation for why audiences appear to be desensitized to the daily violence depicted in the news. It is overexposure, Durbin states, to the same stories repeatedly that cause the viewers to lose interest in the story. Increased aggression and acceptance of violence can also occur through the media’s portrayal of violence. The practice during several of the army attacks in Iraq of filming ongoing violence with cameras positioned on military vehicles could contribute to the glorification of violence and weapons, for the images relayed to television viewers is similar to that of a video game (Walma van der Molen, 2004).

Another possible result of exposure to sensationalized media is a misconception of the world and the occurrence of violence. The war images that we see, for example, are not always documentary evidence of war’s bloodshed; some famous images may be misidentified; some photographers and filmmakers have rearranged the dead like props (Freund, 2004). Exposure to media of this kind can also result in fear and stress. Much of the major news content in recent years, such as the Oklahoma City bombings, child kidnappings, ethnic cleansing, terror in the Middle East, the September 11^th attacks, and most recently, the war in Iraq, all involve victims that viewers can identify with and provide recurring and sometimes glamorized images of weapons and war. Viewers of “breaking news” stories are regularly confronted with highly distressing and violent accounts of murders, catastrophic accidents, and war. Walma van der Molen (2004) believes that the media’s realistic portrayal of violence “heightens levels of involvement and aggression, immediate fright reactions, fear of the world as a scary place, and desensitization.” She is also interested in the effect of media violence on children, and states that the majority of children experienced profound stress reactions to news about the September 11^th terrorist attacks, and that in some cases it led to posttraumatic stress disorder, even if the child was not geographically affected by the tragedy. Even regular news, such as reports of crime, natural disasters, and accidents can severely affect children, for 10% to 20% of children describe their reactions as intense to very intense (Walma van der Molen, 2004). Since children are regularly exposed to news programs that are not tailored for such a young age group, Walma van der Molen makes an excellent argument that media violence has a profoundly negative impact on children as a cohort.

Networks are increasingly avoiding the presentation of complex world dilemmas; a 1997 analysis found that merely 20% of evening news programs contained information about foreign and international affairs (Kurtz, 1997). Additionally, studies in the 1970s and 1980s showed that when international news was covered, it was only after the story reached a crisis point. Foreign news coverage is typically focused on breaking stories, with heavy emphasis on violence, disasters, and novelty. One might ask what is the purpose of limiting the majority of news coverage to the shocking and sensational, when it might mean that a more important public-affairs story is not discussed? The answer lies in an examination of news broadcasters’ motivation. The news, frankly, is a commodity with the goal of profit maximization (Slattery, Doremus, & Marcus, 2001). The news broadcasting company’s most important customer is…no, not the audience, but the advertisers whose products are being advertised between news segments. Therefore, the commercial news organizations’ goal is not public education, but public attention. And what better way to grab people’s attention than by showing sensational, shocking news stories? Numerous studies have linked sensationalism to the media’s desire to turn profit or to satisfy audiences’ desire for entertainment (Copeland, 1992; Stevens, 1991). McManus’ 1992 theory of news as a commodity suggests that news programmers are compelled to “produce a product that has a minimal threshold appeal to the maximum number of customers” (Slattery, Doremus, & Marcus, 2001). This theory claims that newsmakers are driven by money and to make the cheapest programming that will still attract viewers, predicting the inevitable shift in the media from making expensive public affairs programs to the vivid and cheaply produced sensationalism. Researchers who argue against the assumption that the news is sensationalist feel that respected journalists intentionally arouse emotion in viewers in order to “channel audience excitement” in an attempt to “right social wrongs” (Grabe, Zhou, & Barnett, 2001).

Slattery, Doremus, and Marcus (2001) examined the content of network evening news from 1968 to 1996, and discovered an increase in what they termed “embedded sensationalism” in network newscasts over time. This embedded sensationalism takes the form of public affairs stories that have sensationalist elements (i.e., crime, violence, disaster, war). The researchers concluded that this emphasis on the sensational can lead to misconceptions about the true nature of the world we live in.

Despite the popularity of the sentiment that sensationalist news is a violation of social decency and that it displaces more significant stories, there are some who believe that this form of newscast can actually play a very important role in maintaining society’s notions of social decency by displaying what is considered unacceptable (Grabe, Zhou, & Barnett, 2001). According to Grabe and associates, it is these stories, typically taken for sensationalism, of violence, disaster, and war, which are regarded as more significant to the lives of the ordinary viewer than the political and economic issues that elitists decide are important information.

There are a number of elements to news programs that must be looked at when determining whether they contain sensational elements or not. Grabe, Zhou, and Barnett examined two television news magazine programs to discern the differences between a sensational tabloid news program (Hard Copy) and a reputable news program (60 Minutes). They emphasized that, when determining whether a news program contains sensational elements, both the content and the form of the program must be evaluated. The researchers examined the content, form, and audio manipulations of the two news programs. They determined that sensational content consisted of news about crime, accidents/disasters, celebrity news, scandal, and sex. In terms of form, video maneuvers and decorative effects were looked at. Zoom-in movements, which increase involvement, were thought to be sensationalist, while zoom-out movements decrease the viewer’s involvement with the television content. An eyewitness camera viewpoint, which assumes the position of the viewer, is a popular camera movement in programs like Cops, and is becoming more popular in local news. The point-of-view camera perspective captures the thrills of a virtual experience, and optimizes a viewer’s sensory experience. Therefore, the eyewitness perspective is considered to be a sensational camera technique. Sound effects, music, and voice tone of the reporter may also be examined to determine the amount of sensationalism in news reporting. Sound effects such as a gavel, a ticking clock, or police sirens, created in post-production, can compel the attention and increase arousal of the viewer, and as such are considered to be sensational elements. Music used in news reporting and an obtrusive tone of voice are also sensational aspects of the news. Grabe, Zhou, and Barnett found that the tabloid news program Hard Copy contained significantly more of these sensational elements than did 60 Minutes, illustrating that a news program cannot simply be called sensational because of its content; and that one must look at how it is produced to determine the level of arousal and sensation stimulation the newsmakers are trying to evoke.

Sensational media images are not only used to attract audience attention and to shock them. There exists a recurring media theme of a preoccupation with images and icons that construct a sense of nationalism. Brecht’s notion of the “every day theatre” of the media acts as an ideological system that influences audience interpretation of war images. The media has constructed nationalist mythologies and master narratives of nationalism, through their portrayal of foreign “barbarians” and patriotic American heroes. Chomsky, in 1987, declared that the media deflect attention elsewhere, like in the Middle East, Vietnam, and Central America, “otherizing” the Oriental. He said that the media do this to divert attention from the “sources of our own conduct so that elite groups can act without popular constraints to achieve their goals” (from Burney, 2002). Said stated in 1979 that the discourses of power, culture, and imperialism historically construct binary oppositions: East-West, Us-Them, Masculine-Feminine (from Burney, 2002). All of these are motifs of patriotism, idolizing the dominant culture, while otherizing the strangers. The selective images shown by news programs following the September 11^th tragedies of the World Trade Center and ground zero served as indexical whammies, pushing into the viewer’s face “documentary evidence” of the atrocities committed by the Middle Eastern terrorists, and created an Us[A]-Them or West-East dichotomy of opposition. While these images were sensational, they were appropriate, timely, and important in the immediate aftermath of the infamous day. However, by recalling and re-imaging the horrendous events creates a narrative of “hegemonic, state-oriented, self-centered nationalism” (Burney, 2002).

Master narratives and ideologically based language also contour the news, creating a gendered, linear perspective on witnessing live, violent, war-based events. This is evident, for example, in the 1952 KTLA broadcast of the Nevada A-bomb testing, as discussed in “History in a Flash: Notes on the Myth of TV Liveness,” by Mark Williams (Gaines and Renov, 1999). The telecast of the bomb’s detonation emphasized its “spectacle of devastating power” (Williams in Gaines & Renov, 1999, p.301), treating the “sign” of a threat of catastrophe as a fetish, an “Other,” in order to contain and control its meaning. The manner in which the reporters described and analyzed the detonation resonated with culturally gendered terminology, a masculinist discourse that attempts to “establish control over a failed masculinized technology” (Williams in Gaines & Renov, 1999, p.301). The masculine act of viewing the event figured the bomb as female, for the commentators adopted expert, masculine, and dominant perspectives, when watching the power of the bomb, as if, according to Williams, the bomb was a “femme fatale,’ duplicitous yet powerful, slapping and shoving the (male) reporters sent to witness it” (Williams in Gaines & Renov, 1999, p.305). This gendered perspective creates a Masculine-Feminine binary opposition, otherizing the Feminine construct and placing the Masculine on a pedestal.

While there is a plain and unchanging personal meaning for each viewer when exposed to sensational images in the media of violence, death, and war, there is no inevitable political meaning in them. Rather, their political meaning and impact can change according to their context. It is important that Americans have knowledge of what their country is involved in

internationally, but one must scrutinize the images they are viewing on the television, for although they may be records of occurrences, they are still images that have been “cooked” by our socializations, by the photographers and cameramen that recorded them, and by the news program which puts them on the air. It is a fact that social discontinuities, such as crises and catastrophes, play a crucial role in connecting TV “liveness” to the “real.” Telecasts of sensationalized material are meant to reaffirm, through their shock value and closeness to death, TV’s unique display of the “Real,” but at the same time, function as an economic project to “sell audiences to advertisers” (Williams in Gaines & Renov, 1999, p.294). It is on the shoulders of the viewers to become educated on the issues posed in news broadcasts, and to take a resistant reading of the material, lest they should become desensitized to and accepting of violence and murder.

References

Burney, S. (2002). Manufacturing nationalism: Post September 11 discourse in united

states media. Simile, 2, 2.

Copeland, D. (1992, August). Melancholy accidents and deplorable news:

Sensationalism and the South Carolina Gazette, 1732-1738.

Durbin, J. (2003). Fear factory. Maclean’s, 116, 23, 24-26.

Freund, C.P. (2004). Flag-draped memories. Reason, 36, 3, 64-66.

Grabe, M.E., Zhou, S., & Barnett, B. (2001). Explicating sensationalism in television

news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 45, 4, 635-656.

Kurtz, H. (1997, August 12). The crime spree on network news. The Washington Post,

pp. D1, D6.

Slattery, K., Doremus, M., & Marcus, L. (2001). Shifts in public affairs reporting on the

network evening news: A move toward the sensational. Journal of Broadcasting

and Electronic Media, 45, 290-302.

Sontag, S. (2002). Memory as a freeze-frame: Extracts from ‘looking at war.’ Diogenes,

201, 113-118.

Stevens, J. (1991). Sensationalism and the New York Press. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Walma van der Molen, J.H. (2004). Violence and suffering in television news: Toward a

broader conception of harmful television content for children. Pediatrics, 113, 6,

1771-1775.

Williams, M. (1999). History in a flash: Notes on the myth of tv “liveness.” In Gaines &

Renov, Collecting Visible Evidence (292-312). Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.