When disaster strikes, journalists have to write something about it—and write it fast. That means they have to take mental shortcuts, calling up established narratives and laying them out like old wrapping paper for new and more ambiguous facts. (Wife poisons husband. Revenge killing? Money killing? Self-defense killing? We stand at the ready with a lot of templates.) While the resulting gift isn’t always pretty, it’s generally good enough for deadline work.
But sometimes the shortcuts produce a journalistic stampede at the worst possible time. That’s what happened last weekend, when 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner shot six people to death at an Arizona Safeway and gravely wounded many more, including Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The dominant storyline in the press—one that persisted in the face of all the facts—was that right-wing hysteria and lunacy had given rise to Loughner’s atrocity. Only on Wednesday night, when President Obama delivered a speech that effectively told everyone to cut it out, was the stampede halted (one hopes). But it’s still worth reviewing how the nation’s leading periodicals descended into such mindlessness.
During the semester, I shall post course material and students will comment on it. Students are also free to comment on any aspect of media politics, either current or historical. There are only two major limitations: no coarse language, and no derogatory comments about people at the Claremont Colleges.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Media & the Tucson Shootings
A chapter of the Graber text analyzes media coverage of extraordinary events. At The New Republic, T.A. Frank offers a sober assessment of how the press erred after the Tucson shootings:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment