Owen Bennett
Staff Writer
Without doubt, journalism is at its lowest ebb in living memory. The recent phone hacking scandal has exposed a morally bankrupt ethos within the world of tabloid journalism in the UK. Closer to home, the fictitious and insensitive article printed by the Daily Mail, falsely pronouncing the death of UCC student Caolan Mulrooney gave us all a somewhat personal experience of the depths to which journalists will go to sell newspapers. Such deplorable actions have rightly caused huge public outrage, with the Leveson Inquiry in the UK the first step on a long road to restore some degree of credibility to the ailing profession. As such, like many pillars of society, journalism can be seen as in the midst of a radical overhaul, a revolution in which the industry realigns itself with what is morally and socially acceptable after a period of sustained decay. Regrettably however, the conversation which has ensued regarding the renewal of journalism has to this end focused solely on the ethics of journalism; how they can be restored and safeguarded. What has been neglected is a reflection on the normative role of journalism; what journalists should seek to do in their writings. What has become clear in the present climate of political, economic and social difficulty is the reality that the media as a whole has almost totally devoted itself to exacerbating feelings of despair and negativity. When one opens a newspaper or turns on the radio, they are met with a torrent of negative reporting, with huge emphasis placed upon that which hinders us as a people and little attention given to the manifestations of human endeavor and compassion which define our existence.
Indeed, addressing The Hist last year, Tony Blair’s former Press Secretary Alastair Campbell decried what he saw as “the culture of negativity” which he claimed permeates media in the Western world. Campbell, himself a former journalist, went on to cite a report published by an English think tank which found that on average, for every 1 “positive” article published in the print media in the UK, a startling eighteen “negative” articles are printed. The same report noted that in 1970 that ratio was 3 positive to 1 negative, illustrating a paradigm shift in journalistic philosophy. This surely constitutes unbalanced delivery of the news. Is it really the case that every facet of human existence is permeated by negativity? I personally think not. Ireland remains one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, ranking 7th in the 2011 UN Human Development Index. We continue to excel in numerous areas of human competition and expression, be it sports, the arts or technological research. Yet, our achievements and success often attract little coverage and are pushed aside to devote even more column inches to the uncompromising “negativity buzz”.
But why is this the case? By nature, human beings are for the most part, optimistic, enduring and adaptable. Why do we succumb to such degrees of negativity on a daily basis? The causes are unsurprisingly multifold. It does not take a genius to recognize that we are currently in an economic trough with the dual scourge of unemployment, and decreased income a stubbornly persistent phenomenon. Clearly then, those wishing to push a negative agenda have much ammunition to play with. As a developed nation accustomed to high growth and a high standard of living, many of us, especially the younger generations, are in unprecedented territory. With the dramatic reversal in economic fortunes, it is understandable that despair can take hold.
Yet, there is a deeper root cause for the current negativity binge within the media. Simply put, negative stories sell newspapers. We appear to be able to identify more with the sufferings of others than with the successes of others. As Oscar Wilde aptly quipped, “anyone can sympathise with the sufferings of a friend, but it requires a very fine nature to sympathise with a friend’s success”. Moreover, negative journalism tends to elicit stronger feelings within people. It is often far easier to arouse interest in a subject when there is something contentious or unsavory to say about it. Economics is a case in point. The dismal science was indeed quite pedestrian in the Celtic Tiger years with the novelty of economic growth and employment soon wearing off. However, since the downturn, economics, and the doomsday predictions informed by it, has taken on a whole new role; in many senses representing the media’s raison d’être.
In this context, there is a desperate need for more balanced news coverage. Journalists must not be characterized as harbingers of misfortune. While obviously the media should not shirk from its responsibility to deliver the stories, selective reporting is indicative of diminished values in the profession. Prophecies of doom will not deliver us from our economic and social malaise. The media must rediscover its role as a medium for the news, not a shaper of it. Indeed, in an environment of such despair, the need for responsible journalism as a means of eliciting hope and reassurance has never been so urgent.
