The media is an incredibly influential force that is arguably more powerful than any sociopolitical organization that exists today. It has the ability to inform and reach populations on a vast scale, rousing and mobilizing movements that take the world by storm. Now, we are more informed and more interconnected than ever, and local events quickly become global issues through the expanse of the internet. However, at a time when information is so readily available, the public interest has become temperamental- headlines enter and leave the spotlight in a matter of days, completely forgotten in the face of the latest breaking news.
In the face of events such as the destruction in Puerto Rico, it is quickly becoming evident that news organizations are following a dangerous trend of reluctance to address more weighty, potentially less “interesting” humanitarian crises. A prime example is the lack of coverage on the extreme ethnic cleansing directed towards the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, the overwhelming violence buried for over three years and only just now reaching the peripheries of public consciousness: while everyone is aware of Trump’s latest screw-up, not many have heard of the plight of the Rohingya. Similarly, almost no screen time is devoted to the nearly 30 year long civil war in Uganda, the critical food shortages in west Africa, or the crippling national debt of “third-world” countries. On the other hand, events such as the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2005, or the recent Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma, produced countless articles and humanitarian relief movements.
Faced with such examples, the focus of the media may seem arbitrary; however, it is in reality determined by multiple factors.
At the most basic level, media organizations are producers within the market economy: as a response to a demand, they search for and provide novel information. In constant competition with one another, they jostle for an advantage and respond to subtle shifts in their audience. Despite journalistic ideals which hold to higher truths, news agencies ultimately search in order to sell, in order to survive, in order to search. Decisions about what to report on, therefore, are heavily influenced by the demands of the global market.
Audiences naturally take interest in that which directly affects them. Locally and nationally relevant news stories satisfy the tendency of North Americans to focus inwards rather than outwards, and stories about Prince Harry’s latest adventures sell, so the media produces more. This mentality is evident in the case of the recent hurricanes, with news headlines dominated by stories of American people and businesses and sufferers in need of aid as opposed to the relative silence on the complete devastation of Puerto Rico: Trump picks a fight with the NFL, and, by the way, Puerto Rico is facing destruction from a hurricane as well as overwhelming economic and political instability.
Besides relevance, alarmism and pathos also sell headlines. Body counts and starving children both do their job of satisfying our morbid curiosity about the suffering of others. Take the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2005, and similar natural disasters. Sudden and drastic, such incidents have the element of surprise and provide easy-to-capture, dramatic images that hook the attention of the audience. In contrast, humanitarian issues such as widespread poverty in Africa or Uganda’s devastating 30 year civil war are complex and dragged out, with no dramatic beginning or foreseeable end. Articles about these events can even propagate negative stereotyping, painting conflicted countries as parasitic, ignorant, and desperately in need of Western salvation.
Obviously, the motivations of the media have many flaws, but there are also many obstacles preventing agencies from covering certain stories. Depending on the situation surrounding a crisis, it is often difficult to access enough reliable information to produce an article. Sending journalists to gather details firsthand can be costly as well as dangerous, and at times completely impossible due to governmental restrictions. Information may be also hard to obtain when an area internally suppresses or controls journalistic activity. Furthermore, the timing of a crisis in relation to other events determines the degree of coverage, as media agencies cannot report on all stories at the same time.
The media has suffered a substantial loss- despite its ability to mobilize enormous audiences, news headlines are cluttered with trivial, downright inane articles relevant only in a national perspective and barely scratching the surface in terms of profundity. In short, the current state of media reduces devastating humanitarian issues to a body count, placed next to “Ariel Winters: Paparazzi Ruined First Day of School.” The discordance between the economic needs of media and the journalistic code of ethics creates a strange push and pull between what should be reported on and what is reported on- perspectives are constantly changing, public interest is constantly shifting, and the media shadows it all armed with a MacBook and a phone camera.
The media and the public are irrevocably connected: each has the power to influence the other. Currently, economic and social barriers propagate a cycle of news, and as inhabitants of the modern world, we are inclined to resort to passivity. However, it is only when we are aware of global events and cognizant of humanitarian needs that the media can live up to its standards and act as a positive influence in the global community.
