Sensationalism

It seems that every other headline I see features, at the very least, a hint of a desire to evoke some sort of strong reaction, and I'm far from the first to observe this. Sensationalist headlines are anything but a new phenomena, yet they appear to have found a strong home in the age of the internet. I think a large factor that plays into why they're so commonplace is the fact that, in a sense, they're necessary. The reason for the necessity is that we've all just become so numb to stimuli in the news and something powerful is needed if any publication wants a glimmer of a chance of catching the public eye. A modest headline implying a sense of normalcy would largely go untouched in the world we live in, while something that seeks to inflame powerful emotions is something that we all can't seem to get enough of. "How did it get this way?" is a question I often ask myself, and as I look through the past for a clue, I find the answer to be somewhat of a slow progression over time. In a collection of old articles, now and then one would find a story with a title that seems a bit exaggerated, but there seemed to be a sense that pulling at peoples emotions unnecessarily was unethical. That sense all but disappeared gradually. The dawn of tabloids may have played a role in this, but I think it's also about the larger attitude of the public and the gradual dissatisfaction we've shown with stories that say things are just business as usual. It's somewhat ridiculous for some people to complain about rampant sensationalism, when the reality is that publications are simply supplying a demand. It almost seems like we just want to be shocked, to be angry, to feel something that snaps us out of the monotony of our day to day lives, but at what point does that become substantially problematic? I'd say it's when the desire for exposure as a source of information comes at the cost of a severing with the reality of the situations that are unfolding. The reason this is problematic is that it allows people to shape their reality around either false or exaggerated notions, which often leads to exaggerated actions, and that's where danger tends to comes in. For the sake of making an honest attempt at fairness, I'll admit that sensationalism isn't something that's unique to any particular corner of the political spectrum. I've seen ample examples of it from both well known right and left leaning sources, but that's to be expected with slanted outlets. When reporting has an agenda, bringing out reactions are the obvious goal, but what's really disturbing, is when supposedly objective sources of reporting start participating in the same practices. A news source that one would typically rely on for level headed coverage resorting to producing the same kind of click bait that comes from the fringes means that we're left with little options other than to allow ourselves to be completely swept up in exaggeration. Then there's the even more troubling idea that what we're seeing isn't actually even sensationalist, but rather an accurate interpretation of the world, leaving no other conclusion than everything having gone completely insane to come to. Thankfully, I don't wholly subscribe to that idea, and I think most rational people don't either. I'd still like to think that the unnerving practice is just a gimmick for attention. The idea that it's all just the result of an ever growing competition for the public eye isn't nearly as unsettling as the possibility that what I'm seeing actually reflects reality. The real problem is that, at least in the current climate, there's no way to tell completely which is the case. I mentioned in an article from a little while ago that simply pointing out obvious endemic issues isn't anywhere near as noble as being able to recognize and attempt to correct your own faults, so I'm also going to try to do that. I've been made aware that I'm not exactly innocent of partaking in sensationalism myself. I've been told that what I write, the visual accompaniment I select to accompany my articles, and the language I employ, is not always, but often sensationalist in nature. Those who have told me that are absolutely correct. When I write about topics I personally feel are important, I often let my passion get the better of me, and from time to time this results in a kind of distorted or exaggerated version of the picture being painted. That's obviously a problem, but what can be done about it? I believe the most significant way to curb sensationalism coming out of my own writing would be a more thoroughly self policing of the language I employ and perhaps more of a reluctance to write about topics in the heat of the moment. Unfortunately the downside of that would be that detached and emotionless writing is usually uninspired and, quite frankly, boring. Just writing that last sentence gave me a better understand the appeal of sensationalistic writing from the perspective of the writer, which is that when something is created passionately, it's viewed as a better reflection of the creators capability in their chosen medium. No great art was ever made by an aloof artist, it has always been made by someone who is emotionally invested in their work. But that's where the distinction between art and journalism comes into play. Where art is intended to evoke a specific feeling, reporting is supposed to inform and allow the individual experiencing it to come to their own conclusion of the events told of therein. Blurring the line between the two can have catastrophic results and the ethical responsibility of those with the platforms that reach out to large audiences cannot be understated.