Less than an hour ago, a news story broke reporting a foot and hand had been delivered to two Vancouver schools. Police can not confirm whether these are related to the alleged crimes of Luka Rocco Magnotta, and the murder of Jun Lin.
What do we do with this information? What can we learn from the story?
I have worked in media for more than a decade. Television news is driven by two principles (whether the medium admits it or not): ratings (entertainment), and public service.
The axiom “If it bleeds it leads” is no secret to newsroom staff internationally. Car crashes, bicycle accidents, and pedestrians hit by cars all make the top of the show rundown, especially locally. Supposedly these stories educate the viewer about existing dangers, and encourage changes in habit, thereby reducing similar incidents in the future.
A murder and dismemberment becomes as macabre as it is sensational; due not only to the violent loss of life, but the gruesome facts which accompanied it. As this particular story develops, a conundrum exits: a news gathering organization can obviously not ignore a foot delivered to a school. What if your child attends that school? What if the part belongs to an as yet unknown victim? And yet, how is the average person served by this new discovery?
But, the level of fascination grows disproportionately as the details become more and more gruesome?
Why? What is our fascination with dismemberment, and car crashes, and blood?
Is it our effort to learn about the victim or the criminal? To protect ourselves, with thanks to newsrooms around the world? Or are we mostly peeping Toms (and Tammy’s) trolling for images in tweets and video on blogs?
I don’t have an answer. I’m just, ironically, posting the question.
—
photo of question mark on chalkboard Shutterstock
I think part of the fascination people have with gruesome things is partly morbid curiosity but also partly to make sure it was a freak accident that couldn’t happen to them. I know I feel reassured when an accident happens that wouldn’t likely happen to me. But I could definitely live without hearing the details of this particular story. Maybe the news stations think this story will get high ratings but I for one will be switching the channel.
I’m reminded of something Jon Carroll wrote years ago. He said that the standard defense of this death-oriented, blatantly fearmongering journalism is “Well, scary stories get the most ratings, we’re just giving the audience what it wants.” Carroll went on to say that if you were walking down the street and saw a guy standing on a soapbox yelling “Someone’s trying to kill you! Stop and listen to me or you’ll be murdered!” then you’d likely stop and listen, but it would not be true that the guy is giving you what you want.
True. Its more like, “Well scary stories get the most ratings, so that’s what we do to get the most ratings.” Carroll went on to say that if you were walking down the street and saw a guy standing on a soapbox yelling “Someone’s trying to kill you! Stop and listen to me or you’ll be murdered!” then you’d likely stop and listen, but it would not be true that the guy is giving you what you want. Yep. The point isn’t that you’re getting what you want from that guy. The point is that guy wanted your attention and… Read more »