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.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago if someone made an outrageous remark about an organization I probably would have advised officials not to respond. To do so inevitably would give credibility to that person, put the organization’s spokesperson on the defensive, and unintentionally confirm the situation as controversial. Not responding would usually mean that the whole thing would just go away.

But in today’s media climate not responding can lead to unanticipated problems. For example, there is no doubt that today’s social media combined with the voracious appetite of 24/7 news very likely can lead to lies sounding true… at least true enough to seriously damage reputations.

And when a political party decides to attack the government as a whole, block everything a president does, object to every domestic and foreign policy, and reject every economic initiative, there also can be unintended consequences. In addition to creating gridlock and nothing getting done, a mean-spirited polarizing approach can also lead large numbers of people to view the attackers themselves as a huge part of the problem.

So in a new media world lies can begin to sound true,  attackers can eventually become part of the problem, and simple promises of a better life by someone outside the system can become very attractive. Feelings emerge that social progress has become hopelessly gridlocked, and very soon there is too much support and momentum for the outside person to be stopped. In other words, the desire for happy days “trumps” any demands for details about action plans.

The news media also plays a role here. Events and public  pronouncements that stand out and grab public attention are clearly news. When such stories have next day follow-up potential they are really good for business, i.e. ratings and headlines. The unintended consequence, however, is that the person able to generate grabber headlines gets what amounts to free publicity, and often a lot of it over extended periods of time. Eventually this adds up to establishing emerging leader credibility.

Similar conditions existed in Germany in the 1930’s. People had become disenchanted with government, the jobs economy was weak, international prestige was suffering, and conditions were ripe for promises of a better life. An unlikely individual emerged with that promise, as well as an additional one to restore the public’s pride in the superiority of all things German. By the time enough people saw what was actually happening it was too late to stop it.

Does all this mean that the news media has a responsibility to step in very soon and demand on-the-spot proof for comments that seem less than truthful? Or does it mean that many other organizations and schools need to accept the critically important responsibility of teaching masses of citizens about  today’s media dynamics and consequences?

For now, however, it may be that we can only cross our fingers. If we actually do elect a president based more on promises than substance, let’s all hope it all works out anyway!

Read Full Post »