Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Maneuvering a manipulative media

This week Western media has been firmly fixed on the Brussels bombings. In her most recent “Prince” column, Sarah Sakha ’18 laments how coverage of the Brussels bombings has completely eclipsed coverage of attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Iraq and Ivory Coast. She writes, “Terrorism may not discriminate based on geographical location, but the mainstream media does.”

Sakha associates this bias with the media’s playing into public fear. The disproportionality of media coverage makes the attention not news, but sensationalism. We aren’t being informed, but rather we are being manipulated with catchy blurbs and constant “breaking news” updates, much of which preys upon our fears. A headline stating 50 killed in a terror attack in the Middle East garners less attention than a bruised arm at a Trump rally, but 30 dead in Brussels, what in our minds is a secure area in the West, makes for a week of headlines.

In a capitalist market with independently owned news channels, the networks that produce these headlines compete for viewers and ratings. Coverage is in some way reflective of audience interest. News companies cater their stories to what works, to what strikes a chord.

The trouble arises when companies that American citizens count on to report about the country, take such an active role not only in reflecting, but also in intentionally shaping the fears of our country. Bias occurs not just in how an incident is portrayed, but also in what is portrayed — what is included and what is omitted, which terror attacks are repeatedly covered in the headlines and which attacks are completely ignored. When we count on the news to keep us informed about what is happening around the world and what we should be concerned about, we subject ourselves to this bias.

Unfortunately for many Americans, another bombing in Iraq or Pakistan hardly makes us do a double take. There’s a reason these stories don’t receive as much attention. However, by focusing on the attacks that are more likely to strike fear in Americans, terrorism in the West becomes a lightning rod for network owners. This, in turn, takes an active role in shaping policy and government attention. Terrorism and national security suddenly become immensely important issues to voters. Rather than seen as a global problem, ISIS becomes painted as an American problem — spurring on radical nationalism and “Trumpisms.”

News companies love anything to do with the conflict between radical terrorists, Islam and the West. They touch on all the polemical points of entertainment and intrigue: fear, death, war, social justice and religion. It’s the perfect media package. It also happens to sound like the perfect horror movie.

The same also seems to be true for Donald Trump. Every third op-ed is a new theory on what’s wrong with Trump, how he continues to attract voters and how his presidential election will turn out — not the country’s elections, but his election.

As with terrorist attacks, Trump coverage has gained momentum. It feeds off of itself. While it would be difficult to argue that news companies should stop reporting on terrorism for fear of inciting further attacks, in the case of a presidential election, coverage can play a vital role in determining voting outcomes and inciting violence. In the last year, Donald Trump has gone from being confused with Warren Buffet and Hugh Hefner to one of the most recognizable faces in America.

In her article for the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin calls out the media, noting Trump’s unprecedented amount of media attention and the effect it has had on campaign dynamic, “Trump was the show — for months — on all the cable and network news outlets.”

The real tragedy, however, is not that we pay attention to the wrong things; after all, terrorist attacks in Brussels are no trivial matter. The issue is that important events go unreported. The Brussels attacks are tragic, but so were the attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Turkey, Iraq and the Ivory Coast.

Even if we say “no” to Trump on election day, we’ve said yes to a thousand Trump op-eds, aiding his campaign in becoming the biggest publicity stunt in the history of the United States. Reporters need to go back to doing what their name suggests — reporting — and leave the story telling and excitement to the artists and novelists, and maybe even to Donald Trump.

Luke Gamble is a sophomore from Eagle, Idaho. He can be reached at ljgamble@princeton.edu.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT