Begin the discussion by responding to the following prompt:
This 1865 account has a certain style and tone that differs from news stories today. What effect do you think such a report had on readers in 1865? Keep in mind that citizens might have read the report several days after the event occurred. How would today’s 24-hour news cycle affect reporting on such a tragic event? How might those changes alter the way citizens today respond to tragedy? Give your opinion and support it with examples.
The account from 1865 indeed exhibits a style and tone that diverges greatly from contemporary news stories. In that era, news traveled slowly and reports may have reached citizens several days after the event occurred. This delay likely had a profound effect on readers in 1865, as they would have had more time to digest the information and emotionally process the tragic event.
During this period, news was primarily disseminated through newspapers, which allowed for a more reflective and measured response. Readers would have had the opportunity to engage in discussions with friends, family, and colleagues, allowing for a collective processing of the tragedy. This communal approach to news consumption allowed citizens to navigate the emotional impact together and foster empathy within communities.
However, in the present day, news is transmitted instantaneously through a 24-hour news cycle, social media platforms, and online news websites. The constant bombardment of information leaves citizens with less time to emotionally process tragic events. Moreover, the competitive nature of the modern news industry often prioritizes sensationalism and breaking news rather than a thorough examination of the context and human impact of a tragedy.
For example, consider a recent mass shooting that receives extensive media coverage. In today's news cycle, breaking news alerts, live updates, and opinionated commentary inundate individuals within moments of the event occurring. This inundation can lead to emotional distress and desensitization as people are exposed to a barrage of tragic events without sufficient time for reflection or healing.
Furthermore, the rapid dissemination of news today often results in misinformation or incomplete reports. In the case of a developing tragedy, such as a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, news outlets may report conflicting information or act hastily to be the first to report the news. Consequently, citizens receive incomplete, inaccurate, or exaggerated details, which can heighten fears and anxiety, causing unnecessary panic or confusion.
In contrast, the delayed news cycle of 1865 allowed for more in-depth reporting. Journalists of that era had time to investigate, verify facts, and provide a thorough analysis. This approach fostered a sense of trust between readers and reporters, giving citizens the confidence that the news they received was reliable and well-informed.
In conclusion, the shift from a delayed news cycle in 1865 to the present-day 24-hour news cycle has altered the way citizens respond to tragedy. The constant influx of information, limited time for reflection, and the potential for widespread misinformation have desensitized individuals and prevented communities from collectively processing and healing from tragic events. Considering these factors, it is important for news organizations to reflect on their reporting practices and prioritize responsible and ethical journalism that facilitates empathy, understanding, and an informed public response.