Media started with the paper on your front porch, to the television in your living room, and then to a tiny screen in the palm of our hands. If one were to try and avoid the media, it would be nearly impossible. Since Media is versatile and readily available at any time of day, it is now their job to create a captivating headline to attract audiences. In this paper, I will discuss how the media is biased when it comes to natural disasters, mass shootings, and politics. In the media, natural disasters are made to sound like a war zone. Mass shootings in media are used as an outlet for gun control. In politics, the coverage on how the government is dealing with the issue is a different story in every station. These tactics are used by the media to attract an audience and manipulate what they think about the problem. This is what I call headlining misconceptions.
When it comes to natural disasters these words come to mind; Mother nature, powerful, and unstoppable. When a natural disaster strikes civilization, the media uses words that typically describes a war. Words such as onslaught, line of fire, and war zone are used in every natural disaster that occurs. Not only does media use words that describe war but they also film it the same way they would when there is war. There is dramatic graphics, helicopter shots, acts of heroism when in the face of danger, and send reporters to report in the hostile territory. This wartime approach gives news networks a compelling way to tell stories about things such as major hurricanes. The problem is when you treat natural disasters like war you need to find an enemy. However, this enemy isn't a guy its mother nature. News networks use concepts like mother nature because it gives audiences a clear culprit to blame for what's happening. It is seen as an easy storyline because people can pick out the good guys from the bad guys. The good guys being human and the bad guys being nature. News reporters often use this phrase "While we are seeing the worst of mother nature, we are seeing the best of people." Unfortunately, it isn't that simple. In a lot of cases human choices are the reason why disasters end up being so catastrophic. Take Houston for example, it was one of the worst flooding disasters in American history. One of the reasons the flooding caused so much damage is because developers were allowed to build over the natural floodplains over the past few years. That put thousands of people in harm's way and made it harder for the area to absorb stormwater. Another example is Miami beach, it is considered a barrier island which is supposed to shield the mainland from storms like hurricane Irma, but now bustling hotspots, increasing the chances any major hurricane can cause damage.
All of this is happening at the same time climate change is raising sea levels and making more natural disasters. Most insurance companies are not looking into studying the effects of climate change and how it affects these disasters, and Florida Governor Rick Scott has banned government officials from using terms like "climate change" and "sea level rise". None of this is due to mother nature, but news coverage that uses, human vs nature story helps politicians shirk responsibility. This allows politicians to relate mother nature as some big uncontrollable monster we can do nothing about. However when the storm is over news networks shift their focus onto a new enemy, dangerous survivors. What the media means by dangerous survivors is people who loot or break the law during the time of a hurricane or flood. Reporters, who often get information from officers and government officials tend to overhype the threat of criminal activity after natural disasters. This then helps news reporters to keep going on this war-zone theme after the storm has passed. There are good guys and there are bad guys, the good being innocent victims and the bad being looters. It is proven that looters are very rare when a natural disaster occurs, but it is a staple in news coverage to mention the possibility of looters. This then puts people at risk because they feel the need to stay home when there is an evacuation because they don't want to be looted. Because of this myth military soon comes in after the storm to set strict curfews and ration out food. Soon what the media always depicted as a war-zone will look and act like one. Overall, natural disasters are chaotic and devastating, and it is tempting in the face of destruction to look for a scapegoat, whether it be looters or Mother Nature. However natural disasters are more complex than "us vs them" narratives because it makes it harder to think critically about the choices we make before the next big storm hits.
In America we see the words mass shooting all too often. It is a huge problem we face in our country, and the media will generate an endless stream of coverage that can last days to months. Despite the variation in coverage there is one thing they all have in common, the overwhelming attention to the perpetrator. The media will first cover the story and talk about the survivors and victims, then they will dramatically shift their focus onto the perpetrator once the name is released. The media will show pictures of the perpetrators social media account, discover where they are from, where they live, and interview people who knew them to see if anything was out of the ordinary. The perpetrator is the main focus of news coverage because they are the bad guy in the story. Much like natural disasters there has to be a good guy and bad guy. However in this scenario the media is finding the source of why this event happened. They talk less about the people who lives were taken, and injured, making them second priority. With such a strong focus on the shooter and the reasons to why that event happened opens other like-minded individuals who are also considering a planned attack on the public, will likely focus on the media and it’s coverage to create a copycat effect of the story. This theory has been researched and they found that a copycat incident is more likely to happen when coverage is at is highest which is within the first two weeks. For example, on February 18, 2018, a shooting took place in Parkland, Florida resulting in 17 deaths. After two weeks of coverage 12,800 stories about the shooting ran online, television, and radio. All of this coverage resulted in a 300% increase in threats and incidents of school violence. These consequences of continuing coverage on perpetrators is clear. It is a misguided spotlight for the public and the most responsible way to report a mass shooting is to share verified facts of the case without emphasizing the shooter and his reasons.
Due to the coverage on mass shooting, it not only influences like-minded people to copycat, but it strikes fear at public events, schools, and spaces. When there is a public event such as a concert people have to go through two gates of security before entering the venue. After entering there are police officers at every corner holding assault rifles incase of emergency. One of the most known shootings at a concert is the harvest festival in Las Vegas with 58 dead. The coverage lasted for months and slowly dwindled away. However recently there was a Global Citizen Festival which I attended and there was a scare that forced 60,000 people to run on top my Mother and I. I heard screams of there is a shooter and someone has a gun. I never felt so much fear in one moment in my life. It was a barren wasteland when people fled the scene and a police officer told my Mother and I there was nothing to worry about it was a barrier fence that fell down. Patrick Martin the lead singer of cold play came onto stage to inform the five people left in an empty field that it was a barrier fence. I was bruised during the incident and many other people we injured during the stampede as well. The point of this story is the aftermath of the event. Once people were told that the sound was a barrier fence falling no one was allowed back into the festival so the festival continued on for five to ten people. On television since it was a live event on television they resorted to technical difficulties when that happened and continued the show and never panned out toward the audience because there was no audience to pan out towards. The news had no bad guy to blame so they broadcasted that only 2,000 people ran and were making jokes about the fact that people ran because of a barrier fence falling and sounding like a gun shot. Paranoia is a major cause to these panics, and when an incident like this occurs it is barely on the news. Media looks for a story that can entertain, and grab audiences to watch their program. They drag out mass shooting coverage until the next mass shooting happens. This creates an illusion that mass shootings are a daily occurrence. Which creates a blanket of paranoia over the public making them second guess big events, schools, and public spaces. Mass shootings are a lot more than the perpetrator and their story. The public needs to think critically about mass shootings and the people who were effected not the one that caused the damage.
Politics is another kind of terror, it deals with the future of our country, and ever since the Trump administration began the media has been going bonkers. The shocking news that comes from Trump and his administration needs a fundamental breakdown in political norms, but if you turn on CNN or WNEP things will look normal, even boring. Thats because our news media isn’t great at conveying politicians have truly gone off the rails. If you look at some of the best journalists on TV such as Anderson Cooper, Lester Holt, Wolf Blitzer, they all talk the same way. They are unemotional, even-keeled, and unfazed by the stories they are covering, and if put on mute you cannot tell if they are talking about the Kardashians or a Nuclear missile launch. The norm in American media is that reporters shouldn’t get flustered, outraged, or emotional about political disputes they are covering. They should set up the story, let the panelists argue, and move on to the next story. It is however acceptable in some cases to act that way but in the Trump era, it’s made political news feel inadequate. For example in August there was a Senate health care vote. Republicans voted to consider a bill without knowing what it is about. The bill was so unorganized and inadequate to be passed that they made Paul Ryan to promise not to pass it. This is a bill that gambles with the lives of millions of people. But on CNN it is business as usual, no freaking out. They just cant admit that something abnormal is happening. Just like when people ignore hurricane evacuation warnings. This is important to recognize this as a form of bias.