Larry D. Lauer

The recent rash of terrorist bombings raises questions once again about the impact of TV when covering violent events.  Certainly 24/7 cable’s non-stop breaking news reporting gives terrorists the terror-producing publicity they seek. But it’s also true that the public needs information about what is going on.

It is a perplexing problem. How much does dramatic TV coverage of terrorist attacks give the public essential information, and how much inspires more terrorism?

For example, does constantly saying “this is the worst mass killing in US history” repeat important information or mostly just enhance the dramatic effect? Or is this the best time to have partisan legislators argue the gun issue on TV?  Or does continuous dramatic repetition of the violence play too much into the hands of the terrorists? Or is labeling every minor update more “breaking news” really helpful?

Since the stakes are so incredibly high is it asking too much for television reporters to tone down the words they choose, use caution in how and where they point their cameras, edit scenes more carefully, and exercise more repetition restraint? I understand this request is asking a lot from a medium that is inherently dramatic. Keeping an audience emotionally connected is good for business. But it’s difficult to ignore the possibility that continuous dramatic coverage of terrorist attacks is a strong factor in producing more terror.

That said, I must also call once again for more media consumer education in public schools, community groups, associations, and in our homes. In this digital TV and social media world news consumers simply must become better editors and critics of what they consume… and they must also come to understand how media revolutions have changed them and their society.