Media sensationalism – Is it misleading the audience?

Edmund Burke once referred to the press as the Fourth Estate, which according to him was more important than other three estates in the Parliament. The term fourth estate is quite applicable to the mass media, as the media have always served as a powerful watchdog in liberal democracy, defending the democratic rights of its citizens. However, in modern times, the media have become manufacturer and manipulator of public opinion. No doubt, the media are now a major commercial industry, always run by a profit-driven approach. For today’s media, TRP is the backbone of their success for which, they are even ready to distort information. Quite naturally, the commercialisation of the media has given birth to a new term, known as media sensationalism.

Gone are the days when the media served as a reliable source of information about any local or global issue. These days, increasing corporate involvement in the media industry has added a new dimension to news and information. To grab more and more audiences’ attention, the media are sensationalising stories in various ways. The sole motive behind it is to get people to tune in their programmes and thereby, earning profits.

Different ways of sensationalism:

The media sensationalises stories in different ways. By showing graphic images of events and using emotional voice-overs to state the intensity of a catastrophic event, various news channels these days try to grab the audiences’ attention. This thing especially came to light during the 26/11 Mumbai mayhem when almost all national and local new channels evoked public emotions, counting upon these two things. Likewise, they often use a human subject, be it as footage or an interviewee, so that we can identify with them as a person, which makes it easier for us to sympathise with the tragedy.

It is very true that the media coverage of the terror attack in Mumbai has brought the Indian media’s incompetence and irresponsibility of handling tragic and sensitive situation to the fore. Do we Indians appreciate melodrama, sensationalism or is it media’s perspective?

What is the impact of sensationalism?

Now the question is the whether media sensationalism is misleading the audiences. Truly, sensationalism is hurled at the common audiences, who tend to believe whatever they see on television. This sensationalist news sometime creates fear or hatred among various sections of a society and thereby, creating a rift in the society. Especially, sensationalist news at the time of crisis seems to ground common people by spreading unnecessary panic.

In his thirty-year research on the effects of television sensationalism, George Gerbner has found that violence seen on television may create the feelings of insecurity and dependence. It can also affect the children growing up in a home where television is viewed heavily and they tend to assume the roles of a victim or victimiser. George Gerber states: “Children are not born knowing these roles. Stories teach them how to act. The stories are the stories that children see and learn from the TV. Consequently, the actions of the media are their own cause for the demise of credibility. The effects of sensationalism are damaging the public and the integrity of journalism.”

It is a real fact that sensationalism has become entrenched in the media, leaving the public paying a high price through their loss of credible sources of information. News, at the time of emergency, on any Indian channel is able to make our spine tingle. Do media houses expect that people in torments will be capable of stating their feelings and emotions? Broadcasting of trials and tribulations of common people ultimately help every media house to keep more audiences glued to the TV and boost its TRP.