In 1865, news stories had a distinct style and tone that differed significantly from the reporting we witness in today's 24-hour news cycle. The account of an event like the one mentioned would have had a profound effect on readers in that era. Given the time gap between the actual occurrence and the report, it is reasonable to assume that readers would have had time to reflect, analyze, and critically engage with the tragic event. The news report would most likely have been a major source of information and discussion, significantly shaping public opinion.
The style and tone of news reports in 1865 were more formal, detailed, and less sensationalized compared to today's media. The report could have invoked strong emotions, but it would likely have focused more on facts rather than on creating a spectacle or manipulating readers' emotions. Citizens back then had to rely on these reports to get information and make sense of what was happening around them. This necessitated a more nuanced and thorough examination of the event, fostering a deeper understanding and a more thoughtful response.
Contrastingly, today's 24-hour news cycle is characterized by rapid updates, constant coverage, and a high emphasis on sensationalism. Tragic events are often sensationalized and presented with stirring music, dramatic visuals, and emotional narratives. In the case of a tragedy, such as a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, the news is instantly relayed to screens and social media platforms, bombarding viewers with unending updates and often speculative opinions. This constant exposure to tragedy may desensitize viewers or give rise to emotional fatigue. Moreover, the competitive nature of the news industry today drives networks to prioritize speed over accuracy. This can lead to misinformation or premature conclusions, shaping citizens' reactions based on incomplete or unreliable information.
In today's climate, citizens may respond to tragedy with heightened emotional reactions, driven by the repeated exposure and overload of information. The intense coverage and sensationalism can generate fear, anger, or even feelings of helplessness among individuals. Moreover, the rapid turnaround of news stories can result in a cascading effect, where one event is quickly overshadowed by another, diluting the long-term impact of each tragic event. In contrast, citizens in 1865 had more time to process events and form considered viewpoints, resulting in a potentially more measured and thoughtful response.
In conclusion, the differences in style, tone, and delivery between news reports in 1865 and today's 24-hour news cycle have a significant impact on the response of citizens to tragic events. While the former fed citizens with detailed and sober accounts that allowed for reflection and analysis, the fast-paced and sensationalized news coverage of today may evoke heightened emotions but also foster emotional fatigue and incomplete understanding. The immediate and constant exposure to tragedy in the modern era can alter the way citizens respond to such events, potentially hindering the development of comprehensive and informed perspectives.
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.
1 answer
1 answer