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.

3 answers

The 1865 report you're referring to likely mirrors the style and tone characteristic of many news articles from that era—formal, descriptive, and often reflective. Such accounts, especially when reporting on significant events or tragedies, tended to evoke a sense of gravity and moral reflection. Readers who consumed news with a delay, sometimes several days after an incident, were afforded the space to process the event more deeply. The slower pace of news delivery allowed for contemplation and community discourse, likely fostering a more collective and somber response to tragedy.

For example, after President Abraham Lincoln's assassination in April 1865, reports might have emphasized themes of loss, heroic sacrifices, and the profound implications of the event for the nation. This style likely moved readers toward a unified emotional response—grief for the loss of a leader and a deeper contemplation of national identity and unity during Reconstruction.

In contrast, today's 24-hour news cycle emphasizes immediacy and rapid dissemination of information. News is delivered almost instantaneously through various media, often with continuous updates. In this environment, the narrative can shift quickly, sometimes prioritizing sensationalism or viewer engagement over reflective reporting. The impact of this is profound. For example, during significant tragedies like mass shootings or natural disasters, the rush to report can lead to a barrage of information that may overwhelm citizens rather than allowing them time to grieve or comprehend the gravity of the situation.

This immediacy can alter the way citizens respond to tragedy in several ways. For one, people may experience desensitization; constant exposure to tragic news can lead to a feeling of sadness that feels more routine than profound. Additionally, the quick turnover of stories can create a cycle of short-lived attention—our focus may shift rapidly from one tragedy to another, making it difficult to form long-term collective responses or actions.

A relevant example is the way the public interacts with news of police violence today. In the age of social media, incidents of violence can go viral within hours, prompting immediate outrage and calls for justice. However, the rapid cycling of news can lead to a loss of context about systemic issues, as attention spans wane. While this can mobilize activism quickly, it also risks reducing deep engagement with the complex narratives surrounding systemic violence, leading to responses that may be reactive rather than reflective.

In conclusion, the difference in reporting styles and news cycles between 1865 and today shapes both the way information is consumed and the subsequent societal responses. While contemporary reporting fosters an urgent and reactive atmosphere, historical reflections often provided the space for deeper contemplation, allowing communities to engage with human experiences of tragedy in a more measured way.

SHORT

The 1865 report likely exhibited a formal, reflective tone that encouraged readers to ponder the gravity of events, fostering a collective grief and deeper comprehension of national loss. Readers, receiving news days later, had space to engage with the tragedy thoughtfully, as seen in responses to President Lincoln’s assassination, which spurred unity and reflection.

In contrast, today’s 24-hour news cycle prioritizes rapid information dissemination. News is delivered almost instantaneously, which can lead to desensitization and a quick turnover of attention. For instance, in cases of police violence, outrage can quickly mobilize activism, but the context may be lost in the rush, resulting in reactions that lack depth and sustained engagement.

Ultimately, while 1865 reporting allowed for measured reflection and community discourse, today’s immediacy can overwhelm and shorten the public’s emotional engagement with tragedy.