Should News Sites ‘Glorify’ Live, On-Air Suicide?

Like many others, I watched a man shoot himself on “Live TV”, days after it went live. I watched Fox News anchor Shepard Smith react too late to an incident he could not have predicted. Will Oremus summarises the event:

Live coverage of a car chase on Fox News turned into a grisly spectacle Friday afternoon when the suspect got out of his car, stumbled down a hillside, pulled a gun, and shot himself in the head. As the scene unfolded, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith grew increasingly apprehensive, then yelled “get off it, get off it!”, belatedly urging the show’s producers to stop the live feed as it became obvious the man was going to do something rash. The station cut awkwardly to a commercial just after showing his death.

Yet what is of concern is not whether Fox News “messed up”, but whether Internet news-sites should’ve made, posted, linked to and advertised short clips of that particular segment.

BuzzFeed immediately posted the footage on YouTube, where it garnered more than 1,000 “likes” in under an hour. “Here’s the video of that car chase suicide aired by Fox News,” tweeted Dorsey Shaw, who makes videos and gifs for Buzzfeed. BuzzFeed’s official account quickly retweeted it, and it began to make the rounds. (And to be fair, it wasn’t just BuzzFeed. Gawker subsequently posted the video on its site as well, as did the blog Mediaite, and the Drudge Report initially linked to BuzzFeed’s post, though it soon changed its top link to Smith’s apology.)

With the network of links, ReTweets, Facebook posts, upvotes, downvotes, do we gain anything from watching a man put a bullet in his head? Do we really need this? Is this news worth its current permanency and glorification via YouTube and our and BuzzFeed’s and Gawker’s linking?

Our concern should not be for dignity, but clarity. We should be discouraged by television, shows, books, people that purport to engage with reality, but instead put a stick made of profit through their engagements and roll it through the sickly, sweet glut of voyeuristic intrigue; a catalyst for eyes and clicks to draw more attention to their station, their books, their papers – more watching, more links, more profit. Look, click, Like, Tweet, ReTweet. No longer are we being told the news, no longer are we gaining awareness of the world: instead, we catch glimpses of it through the pink sweet fluff and, therefore, can’t ever say we’ve seen it all.

This does, of course, tie into the wider discussion of what is worth reporting: almost all celebrity matters, car accidents, murders, and so on, are not actually informing, except on a very basic level. We gain no knowledge as citizens, as road-users, as persons. Sure, we can detail exactly how this car pileup started in this road we all know to be busy; we can outline the events of a random individual who drank too much and went too far with his hands and his wife. But there’s often confusion between being rightfully outraged of such events and being a human camcorder.

We’re in a world where seconds separate our favourite TV-shows and news, yet increasingly we’re being encouraged to react the same to both. This isn’t because the news is actually interested in informing you: it’s interested in your attention.

Just ‘Cos It’s News

BuzzFeed and Gawker claim they’re reporting what is (already) news (elsewhere) and, since they’re news entities, they ought to report it – but this seems to me fallacious thinking. It’s tautological; it’s not a justification so much as a description for why they did it. It’s not reason worthy of moral support.

As Hamilton Nolan, a Gawker writer deserving of much respect, claimed:

My position was that it is clearly news, and that we should run it on that basis. When we heard that Fox News had aired a suicide, what was the first thing we all did? Search on the internet for the clip. The clip is news. It is unpleasant, but it is news. You may legitimately decide to watch it or not, but it is news. [Emphasis added.]

Reading Nolan’s entire piece, this paragraph seems almost hypocritical, since he rightfully claims that “a car chase contains a high potential for mayhem, without any inherent news value otherwise. It is simply mayhem porn.” But Nolan still claims an ethical obligation to report it. “When we start picking and choosing whether or not we run clearly newsworthy things based on whether or not they make us queasy, we're in slippery slope territory.”

This is the main problem. Disgust is almost never sufficient reason for anything. Disgust is as varied as any other mere emotional response. If we acceded to disgust, nothing would probably exist (in the media). But Nolan is committing a fallacious assertion here: He’s assuming the only reason to oppose Gawker’s decision (which, it must be noted, was opposed by some in its ranks) rests on disgust. Nolan himself tapped into the key question: is this news or porn? Is this educating or feeding voyeurism?

It is of course up to us as viewers to reinforce ethical responses to events. We aren’t mindless drones. We’re persons, beings with concerns and thus we must recognise we’re not just passive media sponges: just because a celebrity did something bad is no reason for us to taunt, threaten or deride her; just because a writer plagiarised, is no reason to dedicate webpage after webpage, blog after blog, nit-picking every thing he does when it’s no longer informative.

But it is also up to our sources of information to decide how they convey that information and, indeed, whether they should. The argument that because something is news it is therefore worth perpetuating is not, as we noted, an argument: it’s a description of what news-sites do. One could argue many parts: if you don’t like it, ignore it. If you don’t want to watch it, don’t. But this misses the point: news-sites also know they wield the interpretation of this data. The language, the terms, the pictures, and even the decision to display this event effects how we respond to it. It’s now widely understood that events can’t be objectively reported: but knowing this, news-sites and reporters are under a further obligation to decide “Should we report this? If so, how?”

Showing and Telling

Yes, it’s hard to imagine news-sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker not linking or creating the clip. But a lack of imagination is not a reason to stay silent; it’s no reason to encourage sites not to do so. After all, they already have some of the smartest writers who recognise the voyeurism they’re feeding. Why not take active, showable steps to say: “We don’t want to treat reality like a gameshow: we don’t want to treat people as mere TV characters; we recognise these are people with non-guilty loved ones, friends and so on who could be affected, too, by our engagement with this event, even if these original people did something wrong.”

For example, it would be truly telling for a site to merely write about the event, without going into detail to glorify it. As this psychiatrist made clear to TV news stations, if we want to see less violence, stations are under a moral obligation not to sensationalise mass shootings, since it is this attention, this veneration, that many gunmen are seeking. If the gunman guilty of the Aurora Shootings can have devoted fans, it’s not a strain to recognise this as an important factor.

Sensationalism masked as news, as opposed to underwhelming but accurate reportage, surely is not helping in the lives of the mentally unstable seeking justification for their actions. It is a difficult debate and I’m uncertain how responsible news is – people blame news, games and film all the time. But I think even those like myself, sceptical of the extent to which various media are “responsible” for encouraging violence, can’t be glad of the fluff treatment of violent events in relation to future acts.

Should BuzzFeed and Gawker and others have created the YouTube clip? No. Most of us, I think, gained little from this clip. It was a terrible event, with no context, no assessment. It was simply a man running who, at the end, shot himself. Should BuzzFeed and Gawker report on it? Perhaps: but even if they did, there’s no reason to link to or create the YouTube clip. Let viewers do that. We can safely say that if BuzzFeed did not link directly to the clip, fewer people would see it; fewer would have their voyeurism fed. And the sooner we kill off the appetite for all kinds of media-inflamed voyeurism, made manifest under the guise of “being informed”, fed by the fluff of news-as-sensation, we can deal better with what is really happening, with facts, with real arguments. This is no pipe-dream. It can happen as soon as we take responsibility as moral citizens of the Internet, as moral audience members – a term that we must encourage. After all, if nobody’s watching, no site will be interested. But, too, they can help kill this “mayhem porn” by not dressing their job title up as moral argument.

We know it’s news, we know you’re a news-site. But that’s not a moral reason to report everything merely asserted as news. There are ways to report that don’t require the full extent of your resources, even if those resources take only twenty seconds to make and upload a product and five seconds to link to it.

UPDATE & APOLOGY: In a stupid moment, I chose to use an image of the very thing I was criticising. A friend pointed this out to me. My apologies: I was unthinking and careless. It was/is currently the early hours, after spending the day writing it.

Image Credit: Wags05 (source)

Scientists find a horrible new way cocaine can damage your brain

Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.

Getty Images
Mind & Brain
  • Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
  • Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
  • Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
Keep reading Show less
Photo: Shutterstock / Big Think
Personal Growth
    • A recent study from the Department of Health and Human Services found that 80 percent of Americans don't exercise enough.
    • Small breaks from work add up, causing experts to recommend short doses of movement rather than waiting to do longer workouts.
    • Rethinking what exercise is can help you frame how you move throughout your day.
    Keep reading Show less
    Politics & Current Affairs

    Political division is nothing new. Throughout American history there have been numerous flare ups in which the political arena was more than just tense but incideniary. In a letter addressed to William Hamilton in 1800, Thomas Jefferson once lamented about how an emotional fervor had swept over the populace in regards to a certain political issue at the time. It disturbed him greatly to see how these political issues seemed to seep into every area of life and even affect people's interpersonal relationships. At one point in the letter he states:

    "I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

    Today, we Americans find ourselves in a similar situation, with our political environment even more splintered due to a number of factors. The advent of mass digital media, siloed identity-driven political groups, and a societal lack of understanding of basic discursive fundamentals all contribute to the problem.

    Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.

    The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?

    Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression

    In a 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey by Cato, it was found that 71% of Americans believe that political correctness had silenced important discussions necessary to our society. Many have pointed to draconian university policies regarding political correctness as a contributing factor to this phenomenon.

    It's a great irony that, colleges, once true bastions of free-speech, counterculture and progressiveness, have now devolved into reactionary tribal politics.

    Many years ago, one could count on the fact that universities would be the first places where you could espouse and debate any controversial idea without consequence. The decline of staple subjects that deal with the wisdom of the ancients, historical reference points, and civic discourse could be to blame for this exaggerated partisanship boiling on campuses.

    Young people seeking an education are given a disservice when fed biased ideology, even if such ideology is presented with the best of intentions. Politics are but one small sliver for society and the human condition at large. Universities would do well to instead teach the principles of healthy discourse and engagement across the ideological spectrum.

    The fundamentals of logic, debate and the rich artistic heritage of western civilization need to be the central focus of an education. They help to create a well-rounded citizen that can deal with controversial political issues.

    It has been found that in the abstract, college students generally support and endorse the first amendment, but there's a catch when it comes to actually practicing it. This was explored in a Gallup survey titled: Free Expression on Campus: What college students think about First amendment issues.

    In their findings the authors state:

    "The vast majority say free speech is important to democracy and favor an open learning environment that promotes the airing of a wide variety of ideas. However, the actions of some students in recent years — from milder actions such as claiming to be threatened by messages written in chalk promoting Trump's candidacy to the most extreme acts of engaging in violence to stop attempted speeches — raise issues of just how committed college students are to
    upholding First Amendment ideals.

    Most college students do not condone more aggressive actions to squelch speech, like violence and shouting down speakers, although there are some who do. However, students do support many policies or actions that place limits on speech, including free speech zones, speech codes and campus prohibitions on hate speech, suggesting that their commitment to free speech has limits. As one example, barely a majority think handing out literature on controversial issues is "always acceptable."

    With this in mind, the problems seen on college campuses are also being seen on a whole through other pockets of society and regular everyday civic discourse. Look no further than the dreaded and cliche prospect of political discussion at Thanksgiving dinner.

    Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner

    As a result of this increased tribalization of views, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to engage in polite conversation with people possessing opposing viewpoints. The authors of a recent Hidden Tribes study broke down the political "tribes" in which many find themselves in:

    • Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
    • Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
    • Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
    • Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
    • Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
    • Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
    • Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,

    Understanding these different viewpoints and the hidden tribes we may belong to will be essential in having conversations with those we disagree with. This might just come to a head when it's Thanksgiving and you have a mix of many different personalities, ages, and viewpoints.

    It's interesting to note the authors found that:

    "Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."

    You'll find that depending on what group you identify with, that nearly 100 percent of the time you'll believe in the same way the rest of your group constituents do.

    Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:

    • 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
    • 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
    • 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.
    • 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
    • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
    • 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

    Understanding the fact that tribal membership indicates what you believe, can help you return to the fundamentals for proper political engagement

    Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:

    • Avoid logical fallacies. Essentially at the core, a logical fallacy is anything that detracts from the debate and seeks to attack the person rather than the idea and stray from the topic at hand.
    • Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
    • Have the idea that there is nothing out of bounds for inquiry or conversation once you get down to an even stronger or new perspective of whatever you were discussing.
    • Keep in mind the maxim of : Do not listen with the intent to reply. But with the intent to understand.
    • We're not trying to proselytize nor shout others down with our rhetoric, but come to understand one another again.
    • If we're tied too closely to some in-group we no longer become an individual but a clone of someone else's ideology.

    Civic discourse in the divisive age

    Debate and civic discourse is inherently messy. Add into the mix an ignorance of history, rabid politicization and debased political discourse, you can see that it will be very difficult in mending this discursive staple of a functional civilization.

    There is still hope that this great divide can be mended, because it has to be. The Hidden Tribes authors at one point state:

    "In the era of social media and partisan news outlets, America's differences have become
    dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
    the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
    These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
    putting our democracy in peril.

    Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
    immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
    become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
    Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
    The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
    re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
    building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."

    We need to start teaching people how to approach subjects from less of an emotional or baseless educational bias or identity, especially in the event that the subject matter could be construed to be controversial or uncomfortable.

    This will be the beginning of a new era of understanding, inclusion and the defeat of regressive philosophies that threaten the core of our nation and civilization.