Welcome to Comms 381. In this class we will compare media and media systems in countries outside the United States. We will look at normative media theories, media norms, and outcomes of international media practices. This class will give you a better understanding of international comms practices which will benefit you at some point in your future career.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Jan 24 Reading--Callahan
Please read and comment on the third article. What is your reaction to the article? Do you know of any instances of "compassion fatigue?" Is there any way around that?
I agree with all the points Peter Mann put forth about the negative effects of mass media. One argument in particular I agree with is the "infotainment" idea. Too much "news" is focused on celebrities or movies or scandals, rather than the issues that are really important. This enormous amount of focus makes it difficult for the general public to remain informed about global issues, rather than the latest gossip. I find myself falling into this category often as well--its much easier to find out about the Lindsey Lohan scandal than what is really happening in the Middle East.
As for compassion fatigue, one of the main examples that comes to my mind is that of the relationship between caregivers and patients. With such an emotional overload all the time, it can become waring and hard to feel as invested in the well being of the patient anymore. I'm not really sure what the solution to this problem is--maybe simply starting with recognition and awareness of this problem?
I thought this article was very interesting because I have never made the connection of how mass media can destroy activism. The article stated that the successful activism is founded upon people understanding issues that actually mean something to them which fuels a desire to take action. Unfortunately the way media has progressed it takes a lot of time and reading to develop a core understanding of an issue which many people resort not to do. I agree with the points made about how we experience information overload and the negative impact this has on developing a deeper knowledge on a variety of subjects. With constant media access at our fingertips I feel that our generation knows a little about a lot of things. I asked a friend about compassion fatigue and he mentioned the example of the Salvation Army and giving to charities. We all have seen during the Christmas season the Salvation Army standing outside of stores ringing bells to draw our attention. So often this becomes a part of the normal landscape that we ignore it. I think people have become skeptical of certain charities questioning where their money goes. Ultimately it comes down to people's own choices to decide whether or not to give, but I think organizations could do a better job at appealing towards people by showing the positive results of what is being done with donations. If I saw how the Salvation Army directly influenced a family in my community it would connect with me much more and I would be more likely to help in the future.
I do believe that there can be some positive effects of mass media, however, I do agree with the five things Mann points out as problems that stem from the mass media. These negative effects are very real, and I didn't recognize all of them until he mentioned them. I do feel like sometimes I consume mass media and reporters will throw out words or topics that I don't know much about. So I understand the information, but don't really comprehend it. I think that many people can talk about certain topics without really understanding them. I saw this a lot last year when discussing our nations issues surrounding the presidential debates. It amazed me how much information was just regurgitated from the media and how people did not understanding the meaning behind it.
I also agree that our society is avoiding reality by turning things into entertainment. The "scary" things that the news talks about can be brushed under the rug and avoided by just making them funny or mentioning them on a television show. People don't grasp what is going on. They also don't understand the purpose in this life. I liked his point about kids watching TV. How they only understand that their purpose is to grow up and make money so they can buy what they see in society and on TV. These are HUGE negative effects that have a very large impact on all our lives.
I think compassion fatigue can be seen in many instances. Where people turn away from reality because its too hard to handle emotionally. And because they turn away they don't seem to understand the real issue. When people face hard, emotional issues, they sometimes avoid either facing them or learning about them because its just too hard on their emotions or personal feelings. Such as a person with cancer refusing help because they are in denial, or a mom refusing to talk to their kids about drugs because they turn away from the scary fact that these things face kids today in the corrupted world we live in.
I felt that the author of the article made several valid points in regards to how the media focuses on the wrong things to promote their own agendas, whether they are political or financial. I also think that the author was a little over-the-top. He generalized the most negative aspects of the media to promote his own personal viewpoints of what he thought was important, which I think is fairly hypocritical. I do think though that the media is obsessed with material that has no value.
In regards to compassion fatigue, I think it’s highly plausible for someone to stop viewing uncomfortable material in the media because it’s difficult. People don’t in general tune in to the news to hear about depressing material. We tend to stay within our comfort zone and refrain from exposing ourselves to uncomfortable content. The media shares fluff content because people want fluff content. I don’t know what would have to happen to change the norm.
It was interesting reading this article because I felt like it talked about many of the things we got to discuss in our other PR classes, largely that of agenda setting and framing. It's completely true that the majority of the media focusses on things that they deem important and they believe we should be thinking about. And because of this, the mentality of many people today has shifted to, "humans exist to work at jobs, to earn money, to get stuff." And this stuff is brought to us through different media outlets, one main outlet being TV commercials. The author believes that these commercials have become some sort of an escape from the scary and terrible reality of what is our world today. And because of this, I do think that compassion fatigue is a real thing and can be seen quite commonly. Whether its an emotional struggle or just because they do not quite understand what is going on (due to the major overload in information provided for us through the Internet, social media, TV, etc.), many people tend to filter out info that they believe will harm their personal "happy" view of the world. And I think this is something that the media is quite aware of, hence all of the trash TV, talkshows, reality TV, etc., that all act as escapes to a safe place for many people.
I thought this provided a very interesting perspective. The idea of "information overload" as a suppressant of activism makes sense to me. I particularly identified with the line, "An information glut masks a huge deficit of 'socially necessary information'." It is true that, at some point, my mind just shuts off to it. I try to consume news in order to stay "informed," but sometimes I am overwhelmed by the massive amount of emails or posts in my RSS feeds. I feel like this definitely leads me to consume more palatable information (much like the text's 'infotainment') because it is easier to process and understand quickly, and does not require much reflection or action on my part.
As for the idea of "compassion fatigue," I think the general population finds rationalizations for not acting on the poverty/hunger messaging. I know this is the case with me. I assume that someone else will take care of it, or that I couldn't do much to help, anyway. At the core of it, I think the idea of "compassion fatigue" is accurate in one particular sense: we become desensitized to such messaging through overexposure. After a while, we see it in the same way we do a movie. It elicits an emotional reaction, but is completely disconnected to our actual lives.
I thought the idea of "working to get stuff" was very insightful. We are constantly viewing advertising and reviews for more and more things we want. This is causing us to stretch thinner and thinner, becoming more consumeristic, even to the point of going into debt. When we have placed ourselves into such a situation, we don't feel as though we are in any position to lend a hand of aid to impoverished countries.
My initial reaction to the article was, why am I majoring in what I am? I enjoy my major and see a need for public relations in the professional world but so much of what public relations practitioners do deals with the media. It seems like in the Media Effects class I took and in this class much of what we have read and discussed about media is negative. It is causing people to not think for themselves and the messages portrayed in the media aren’t even the most important ones. The other day in class, you asked us if any of us knew what had happened in international news. The only thing I knew about from the news was Manti Te’o and his fake girlfriend. I could have searched a bit more to find out about international news, but it seemed everywhere I turned, that was the top story.
As far as “compassion fatigue” goes, an example I can think of is immigration. I served my mission in Southern California speaking Spanish, so I grew to love many people who immigrated to the United States. I had compassion for their situation, even to those who immigrated here illegally. When I got home from my mission, there was a big uproar in the news about immigration. But it seemed that people didn’t want to hear about it. I would get on Facebook or Twitter and see many posts mentioning how tired they were of the immigration talks. I wonder how many voters made uninformed decisions about the new immigration laws because they were so tired of hearing about it, they refused to learn more about it.
I think to get around “compassion fatigue,” the media would have to make a change in how they present the news. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. Since the news is a successful business, they will keep glamorizing what is bringing the audience in, which, for the most part, are the hosts.
I found this particular article to be an insightful look into the unique challenges of activism. I felt that the entertainment news in particular rang true to me even though I am by no means interested in celebrity news I feel that I am still inundated with the all of the latest scandals. While working on a class advertising project Choice Humanitarian we also ran into a lot of these issues while strategizing ways to get young people in particular to care about humanitarian work. We found that a lot of times young people were taken back by so much information of some of the negatives things happening in the world such as poverty, crime and injustice that they almost subconciesly didn't want to bother thinking too much about it. It wasn't until the stories were humanized that felt they could and should take action.
Compassion fatigue is real and there is no denying that activism fighting poverty or other global issues is an uphill battle. Perhaps it is because true activism requires effort and conscious thought to create change that it is easier to think of happiness in a Coca-Cola world where it is only a bottle away. To avoid this we need to use mass media to awaken audiences to the reality of the world we live in without dumping them into too much despair. In a perfect world everyone would understand that news of something bad happening in a less fortunate place means we need to pitch in and help out however we can instead of merely saying "what a shame." and then forgetting it all together.
Mann makes a lot of valid points in this article. I like what he says about information inequality. Mass media really does control what we think about. What the media deems important is what is broadcasted across all the news outlets. The nature of mass media is that it is so easily accessible, so people aren't going to spend a ton of effort looking for news that isn't highlighted on TV/the internet. Compassion fatigue is a direct result of the information overload that exists in the world today. People can turn away from the scary news because there is SO much to be distracted by. We have so many choices as to what media we want to consume. I can see in my own life, growing up in this age of information overload, how I really am clueless as to what real issues exist in the world. I could tell you more about the latest celebrity gossip than world news. While the media shoulders some of the blame, I think people need to also make personal choices as to not encourage compassion fatigue. The changes we have seen in the media are not random, they are a result of what people want. I think it's not only a reflection of mass media, but our society as a whole.
This article brought up a number of interesting points regarding the media that aren't generally thought of when talking about activism. In his first point, Mann brings up the idea that information isn't necessarily knowledge. My Media Effects class had an interesting discussion the other day of this same topic, although our conversation was geared more towards media bias and how that influences understanding. My teacher drew on the example of somebody who relies entirely on one news source and then claims to be an expert on a particular topic. Obviously, this is not the case. That person is likely gathering their information from some sort of biased news source that has predicted how readers will react to the story - and have written the story accordingly. Successful activism requires a full understanding of a situation as well as support from others; I don't think either of these can really come without sorting through the information overload to seek out the facts from multiple sources. This ties in well with his second point, which points out that "infotainment" has cut some of the substance out of the media.
I thought that the article highlighted many of the unique challenges that NPOs face. On the one hand, celebrity endorsements and "infotainment" bring much-needed publicity to NPOS, however, such coverage can give consumers the impression of "compassion overload," thus having the opposite effect of what the organization wanted. I think that the article made an interesting point when it cited that consumers don't actually experience too many requests for donations, however, I think that because such requests can be emotionally taxing, consumers often turn away from these appeals. An example of this "compassion fatigue" is the Sarah McLachlan animal cruelty commercials. They are often made fun of in entertainment media because they have become so taxing for viewers. I think that the only way around the perceptions of "compassion fatigue" is for NPOs to remove a lot of the "infotainment" appeals in their donation requests and appealing to the public with more genuine appeals.
Every morning before class I turn on CNN International and watch a little morning news. My roommates are always upset that they aren't watching something mindless like ESPN or a show on Netflix. It is depressing to know we only want to be entertained. I am guilty of it as well. I think of my classes. If there isn't class discussion, interesting powerpoint slides or a video then i'm bored. We live in an 'infotainment" world. A perfect example is the incident with Manti Te'o and his fake girlfriend. With so many real issues happening domestically and foreignly, most of us focused on this pointless story. Even I was hooked on it. Terrorists in Algeria held hostages and almost no one knew about it. That's a problem. Nowadays news gives us too much information and, like the article mentioned, we do nothing. It deprives us of becoming active. If we were not being constantly fed pointless information, we may have been more active. The solution is difficult however because this "infotainment" world has become part of our culture. The only way to really change is to become self aware of our problem and fix it.
Media doesn't tell us what to think but they tell us what to think about and how to think about it. This is one of the points the author makes, and one that I think is growing truer every day. As I pursue a degree in journalism, it is clear that readers are no longer captivated by "hard news." At The Daily Universe it is the stories that are trendy and fun that get the most hits, and many people claim to pick up the paper for the Police Beat and sudoku puzzles. This is even more true based on the fact that audiences no longer have the read the paper or watch the local news station to get information. The Internet allows us to choose our interests and ignore the rest. As the author said, some consumers are hungering again for real news, and it is the responsibility of news organizations to give real content and not entertainment fluff. If they fail to do this, there may not be need for them in the future. Jennifer Riggs
I really enjoyed reading the authors arguments in this article, I liked the argument that there is too much information but not enough knowledge. I think we can fill our minds with information we receive through mass media and yet we find we have very little knowledge of real issues in the end. Ultimately, like it said in the article, the media does not tell us what to think but it does tell us what to think about and how to think about it. I also completely agree with the argument about "infotainment" in how entertainment shows have taken over hard news stories because we are hooked by celebrity and power. I think this goes hand in hand with the term "compassion fatigue" where people are turned away from stories of hunger and famine. In the end they combat these stories by turning them into infotainment and using a celebrity front for these stories, so that the real attention is on the celebrity and what cause they are supporting. I dont really remember seeing any instances of compassion fatigue (other than the classic Sarah McLachlan dog informercials) which I am usually turned away from anyway. I dont see of any way to get around this issue, there is news that many are wanting to share, but if it makes people turned off from these stories and not want to donate to a cause then is it really worth it to share?
This article is very interesting and very true to a certain extent. We truly are in an age where there seems to be too much information. For any topic we can go online and find hundreds of pages on the topics all contradicting the other. Instead of helping us to understand, much of the time it is causing more confusion, therefore making information not necessarily be knowledge. Because of this increasing wave of information we have also needed to place filters on what we allow to enter since we simply don't have the space or mental capacity for all of it. Though much of the time it makes us passive viewers, I also feel that media can cause us to rise up and rebel in a manner of speaking. As can be seen with the recent shootings, the way the media spins a story or the focus they decide to put on it can actually cause people to act, or change their minds. However this only occurs on what seem to be major topics.
I had a mixed reaction about the article. He seems to be fully attributing a lack of activism to mass media. In reality, it is likely that mass media has an effect on activism, maybe even significant. However, I wouldn't be quick to agree that it is to blame for everything. I actually think it is useful and productive in promoting activism in many cases.
In one second the author talks about how when the media covers starvation that they don't focus on the issue, and the next he talks about compassion fatigue. I think you're much more likely to get people to support a cause when you look at the positive side than focusing on a really heavy issue. I know it's sad, but I think an indirect approach might help avoid compassion fatigue.
Honestly, I don't like this article. I disagree that the news doesn't have enough stories on poverty and hunger because I feel like all the news seems to cover these days is sensationalism and explosive social issues. The problem with emphasizing social issues in media is the it makes people think it's the government's job to take care of all of these problems, when really it's just the government's job to protect. I thought the role of the news was to be a "government watchdog" but instead, the news has become the mother to the government, trying to act like their pundits have some form of power to make legislation, especially when it comes to heart wrenching stories about people. How often do they report on someone who has achieved the American Dream?
As far as compassion fatigue, I feel it. In a world where people are stopping you on every corner with advertisements to "save the puppies" or "feed a child for a year" you almost have to push it all out of your mind to stay positive. This is not a good quality we are developing, but it's also not good that every advertisement has some form of pathos that manipulates our feelings. If these were less common, we may actually respond. Before I traveled to southern Africa last summer, I took a culture class that told me "don't give money to the homeless people you see. There are so many you'll end up with no money at all." This hardness is a form of compassion fatigue because we are just taught to brush it all off for our own benefit. I haven't come up with a way to change this, other than to limit the amount of media in our own lives so we can be more Christlike and unhardened.
What is your reaction to the article? Do you know of any instances of "compassion fatigue?" Is there any way around that?
For the most part, I agreed with what this article was talking about. I don't necessarily agree with everything the author says 100%, but I do agree with the main point he is trying to get across. Too often the news is focused on entertaining then it is on talking about real issues. I also feel like the news focuses too heavily on style and show then it does on substance. The news is supposed to serve the purpose of being a watchdog for our country, and while it is important that we know about crimes and fires and other things that are normally covered, it should spend more time informing the people of issues in government and society that he have control over.
I definitely understand what he means by "compassion fatigue" too. When I think of this I think of the dog commercials that Sarah Mclachlan sings in. The real issues of the world are almost glamorized by celebrities intervention. Maybe it's a good way for the causes to gain recognition, but I feel like by putting a celebrity up and front it makes the viewer focus on the person, rather than the issue. As the article states we should escape virtual reality and move into real reality. Problems are changed and improved through action, not through watching a television set. In my opinion, television shows, movies, create such fake realities, that even when news stations are trying to be serious they aren't taken as serious because of the medium in which they are used. It is hard for people to separate television entertainment from television news.
I have mixed feelings about the article. I understand what he means by a lack of activism, we get so overwhelmed by the amount of information that is being thrown at us, and then we just cannot act on it, we just need to learn more about it. On the other hand the amount of information in the media also encourages activism. It is those news about hunger and poverty that move some groups to rescue that people who are endangered.
About the way we receive information, the author argues that media makes us think one way or the other about some topics, and this really limits our knowledge. Growing up in a country where the politicians would sometimes block some information from the people, our knowledge was limited. I believe on the other hand, that it is up to us to research a topic enough to have knowledge and not just information. But again, the whole research might limit our activism.
I agree with a lot that was discussed in this article. The media doesn’t tell us what to think just what to think about. If the media is constantly showing things about celebrities obviously we will end up thinking about them the majority of the time. It appears to me in order to really learn about the world and read something of substance the viewer or reader has to search that information out. Although, I guess hat contradicts what the article says about information overload, which I also agree with. I think society gets bombarded with all this information and then in the end they really are more confused because there are so many different aspects to see and hear about. I think what needs to be done is take that information and sort through it and find out what it really means. I have seen instances of “compassion fatigue” because if someone hears a story too many times they can just end up tuning it out which creates the opposite effect the media is probably trying to achieve. But it leaves the media in a hard place because they are suppose to report about what’s newsworthy and going on at the exact time, but they don’t want to bombard their audiences. I’m not sure what the way around it is, I feel like anything it’s on the audiences part to overcome this fatigue. How do they do this though? I guess they could just add variety into the topics of their media consumption. Honestly, I don’t see a way around compassion fatigue for any topic. The media has to do its job and the audiences will consume what the media puts out, until they get tired of that subject or topic.
What is your reaction to the article? Do you know of any instances of "compassion fatigue?" Is there any way around that?
I have a mixed reaction to this article. I agree that the media can only show us topics to think about, but it has no real control about what we do think about. If someone shows me a picture or starts talking about a topic, I am going to think about that topic. It works the same way with media.
This biggest thing I took from this article was in the "57 Channels and Nothing On" section. Television can teach people a specific way to see life which may not always be the most effective. But mostly, I took from this section that people need to spend more time together. People are the greatest influencers available, not the media. Media can show us what to think about, but people can convince you what to think.
The article had a few very great points about the way our society consumes information. I agree with many of the points made about our mass media and especially with the point made about the way the media decides what and who we watch. I too, am one who is guilty at times of being more interested in Brad and Angelina’s adoptions in foreign countries than most of the hard news stories, but that is what we are being fed as consumers. I think one of the reasons the celebrity concept, or “infotainment” does so well is because consumers feel like they know celebrities, and if they can relate with something/someone they are going to be a much more loyal consumer. If a consumer is simply watching a segment about what is going on in the Middle East it doesn’t seem as pertinent to their lives.
As for the concept of compassion fatigue, there is no doubt that the “hard hitting” global news is perceived as less and less vital to our daily lives. I think that it is up to us, as the consumer, to decide what media we want, and to support that media. With that being said, it is the job of the media to be journalists and to present the reality of what is going on in the world around us.
One of my big reactions to the article was about the news showing only celebrity information. I do not agree with this totally. Yes, the news tells us information about celebrities but it is not always the main focus. When you turn on stations such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC they are often reporting stories of national and international interest. I actually feel that most of the time I am seeing stories on war, poverty, etc. and not on celebrities. Obviously, on some shows like the Today Show or Good Morning America they include celebrity news but they always start off with the hard hitting news. I think the news does inform people of what is happening around the world. I know the news is trying to push their own agenda with what they show but they are still informing people.
As far as compassion fatigue, I do think that a lot of the news is being viewed as less important. I currently work at a non-profit in Provo doing public relations and often it is hard to get news about what we are doing published. A lot of the reporters do not seem to care about food drives, etc. They want to publish what their readers and viewers think they want and not what should always be shown.
I completely agree with the article. There is so much information around us, it can very easily overwhelm you. I am very interested in sports, there are so many places to read articles and watch information it is outrageous. Even if I spent all day trying to absorb all of the information, I would not have time. The information around us can enhance our lives so much, but at the same time too much of anything is not good for you. I see people around me that try to keep up with everything it seems they spend their lives just trying to keeping up the keeping up. I find it pretty outrageous that we have decided to occupy our lives with other people's lives and what they are doing. I have seen compassion fatigue in my own life. Because you see so much media, you get "turned off" to things like car accidents, murders, fires, etc. This can pose a problem with having no compassion, but when you see the same thing everyday it tends to lose its impact.
The article was eye opening and a bit entertaining. I remember learning about a few of these principles in my Media Effects class. Sure the news can't tell you what to do, but they can tell you what to think about. As far as infotainment goes it's so true. I can see people talking about celebrities, brands, and other nonsense over what is really happening around us. Also I was surprise to see the twist at the end that all this can go into poverty and hunger. The article for me drove the message home and did it in a way that could be applied to other factors we tend to ignore in our media consumption.
Compassion fatigue I don't know what it is, but I'm probably the worst person to answer this question. When I see news stories about murders, hunger, or anything that is traumatic, I don't seem to care too much. It doesn't affect me in a way that I want to go out and do something about it or even discuss it. I don't feel I'm heartless and have no empathy or sympathy. My life tends to be more focused on those who are closer to me, family, friends, classmates, co-workers, etc... people that I can communicate with and actually have a verbal or visual contact. I maybe desensitized from the things I watch or the games I play or music I listen too, or I maybe filled with useless infotainment, but I don't feel that's it either because I reach out and do what I can to serve others within my own community and I of course don't participate in violent acts or care to.
How to solve the problem I really not sure. We're all different we react to different things. It's hard to understand and may all come down to raising righteous families and being there for friends.
I most definitely agree with his point number 1. Big corporations and news chains chose what they will broadcast and therefore dictate what we should be thinking about. This is agenda setting at its finest. They directly tell us what to think, but what to think about and how to think about it. As in the article it says that we suffer from information inequality. We have the information but we don't have the knowledge.
I have never heard the term infotainment and that really struck me. It is so true that people strive to be like celebrities these days and not like their parents or another family member etc. Important substance is being replaced by entertainment.
People don't want to know about the sad and horrible things that are going on in developing countries or even in our own. We are selfish people. We want things that will make us happy and don't want to have to worry about somebody else. Americans most definitely have compassion fatigue. How many times have you changed the channel when the orphans in Africa commercial comes on? We change the channel not because we don't care about them, but because we don't want to feel guilty. It doesn't make us happy, and so we move away from it. Compassion fatigue is definitely real and I completely agree with everything in this article.
I definitely agree with a majority of what this article is trying to say. Information overload is totally real. Anyone who says it isn't today must be avoiding all forms of media. When I go on Facebook sometimes after ten minutes or so I ask myself why in the world am I looking at this random person from high school's pics from a recent vacation? Totally unnecessary and stupid and uninformative. But we all get sucked in. On pinterest we find tons of ideas, but how many of them do we actually read, learn how to do it, and finally make the it. Hardly ever. Infotainment, all I can say is Stephen Colbert. Best way to get the news if you want facts and entertaining, which most Americans do today.
"Compassion fatigue" reminds me of an SNL skit where they mocked the commercial of the sappy song and pictures of injured, homeless dogs. Obviously it's meant by activists to have an effect, make a change, but mostly just desensitizes us to mangy looking dogs. Is there any way around it? I'm not sure there is through mass media. A few years ago my family went to Africa for a humanitarian trip. The images will always stick in my mind because they were real. I experienced the poverty, hunger, and destitute living conditions that these children have to endure their whole lives. Nothing is like real life.
I think this article makes some valid claims, but in some parts seems a bit too dramatic. I do agree with earlier points in the article about the media controlling what we think and how we think about it. It is scary to think about the amount of control the media has on our flow of information. We only get what they give us and then it is up to us to sort through it, decide what is important and not, and what is right what is not. I do agree that our news has been taken over somewhat by "infotainment". Hard news is in some ways becoming lost and exchanged for stories about celebrities and less harsh and realistic topics.
Around point #4, this article started to lose me. It stated that to nurture activism, we must subvert mass media, by talking back to the tv or turning it off, seeing through commercials, and refusing the "self-evident truths" of media spokespeople and political establishment figures. I think that rejecting the media entirely and overthrowing it is a dramatic call to action. I absolutely believe that the media had too much control and has the capability to squash activism, but it isn't as heinous as this articles makes it seem. People should be able to consume media while also having the mental strength to sift through the messages and act accordingly.
I am sad to admit that I experience "compassion fatigue" when I read People magazine. People magazine mingles stories about celebrities with stories of ordinary people, usually including the latest major tragedy. I find myself skipping past the devastating stories of the normal people because I would rather read the magazine as an escape into a world of famous people so different from myself.
Honestly, my immediate reaction to this article was that there is truth in it but the article takes it to a complete extreme. It attributes some things completely on mass media that just are not completely the fault of the mass media. In example, saying that mass media is all "infotainment" or that it is the reason people don't view news of a more serious nature is false. It's true that there is more news of it now but if you watch a regular news hour it's not all, or even a majority, celebrity focused. Mass media isn't even the cause. Before celebrity news people would just gossip about each other. Mass media hasn't changed this human desire. It has just provided an outlet.
In a way the term "compassion fatigue" doesn't work. Do I know of instances where people have become fatigued by the depression/oppression/poverty/sadness of the world? Sure. There are many people, my grandmother included, that have decided to forgo the nightly news because of the empty feelings it gives them and the lack of uplifting stories. I don't know of a single person that dislikes watching happy endings or begrudges poor children being given gifts for Christmas (as just one simple example). Compassion doesn't fatigue people - sadness does. To get around so called "compassion fatigue" news outlets should try to mix in more stories of success. The combination of things to be fixed and hope for them to get fixed would actually do more for activism than just showing images of the problem.
My reaction to this article is amen and amen. With information readily available to everyone about any topic, everyone gets to be an expert. This information overload is especially prevelant on the Internet, specifically on social media sites. In a place where everyone feels like they know more than anyone else, all you see is empty rhetoric and petty arguing. I think as the information rises, so will Facebook fatigue and other instances where people get tired of being connected to so many people and hearing everyone's opionins about every story.
Compassion overload is the gospel truth too. Last summer I was stopped on the street to help donate for a cause about something and I don't think I had any sort of an immediate response. That is the main symptom of compassion overload--complete lack of emotion.
I agree about the argument that we are overload with information if we want to be. As a student I do not have enough time to spend hours watching TV or reading magazines or newspapers. However, there have been news that have been so big that you heard about them and you go to read about it. For example KONI, if you live in this world you have heard about this kids in Africa. However, I saw it everywhere until I lost interest, and i do not know what happened.However,I believe if a person is really interested in a topic like women issues because they are going through one or someone they know, they would always be update about what is going on. The problem is of all the information we receive which information is the most accurate. Compassion fatigue we all live it because like KNONI we all have hear of amazing touching stories, but they became so popular that at least me I think ok they are gonna get help from big organizations or something like that. Consequently, I loose interest.
Something that stood out to me is when the author says, “People want media to report on the real issues facing the country.” Really? Do they? Perhaps that was the point and responsibility of television and journalists in the past, but I think that today, people are looking to television and other forms of mass media for entertainment and not to necessarily be informed or to get information out there. A major source of news today comes from yahoo.com. Now this site does have several purposes, such as being a search engine, but it is astounding to see the types of stories that made the front page. Of the sixty-five stories on the front page, forty-one were what I would consider entertainment news (stories on celebrities at Sundance, celebrity children, and sports news), while only six stories covered what the author of the reading would consider real or activist news (such things as congressional hearing and what is happening with weapons in North Korea).
People today just seem to want to be entertained. I think a big reason for this is that there are so many options in media today. Early on, in broadcast history, there was more reporting of news or promoting of values and desires. Today, it is more entertainment. I think a big reason for this is the advent of cable and satellite television. There are so many options today that people can move to what is more suitable for them. Sure there are opportunities for political parties or groups to highlight their needs or the good things being done in the world, but far more people seek information that’s content focuses on entertaining.
I’m not sure anyone would disagree with the arguments this article is presenting unless of course they are severely uninformed (irony intended). As students, specifically communication students, we live in constant Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). I know I strive to look at various news aggregating sites in order to be more aware of the world around me, the direction politics is going, technology, international relations, etc. I fear that this article makes a valid point that I am no stranger to: we are too hooked on “infotainment” and suffer from a severe case of “compassion fatigue”. I understand where non-profit organizations are coming from but it is difficult to be passionate about a specific issue when we are bombarded with these heart-wrenching pleas. The infotainment argument is evident in the constant updates about the Manti Hoax. There is even a section on CNN’s website devoted to news clips and updates. The Algerian hostage situation on the other hand, is almost a second thought (as international news often is). American’s in particular have a problem with discounting the importance of the world which I would argue is credited to the mass amounts of infotainment regarding celebrity donors, or your typical celebrity scandal.
I think this may be a problem for future creativity and development. I fear that students are becoming “jack of all trades master of none”. We care so much about knowing a little bit of everything that in the end we lose creativity, individuality, we lose our genius, our revolutionaries. It’s no wonder we hear little about those who are making a difference in the world of philosophy, art, or literature, there’s not a news spot for them.
This was an extremely interesting article in mind. On one hand, I can see how the claims made can be validated. On the other hand, I feel there was a lot of drama and over reaction to the realities around us. If people want to know the lives of celebrities, so what? Let them. Clearly they do, and that's why there is an avenue for it. But lets not kid ourselves here, there is much more in the media than this. There is not just one news channel anymore. If we want stories, we can find them. The idea of 'infotainment' is very valid though.
As for 'compassion fatigue', I feel this idea is pretty prevalent in our society today. There is an overwhelming overload of care stories that we are encouraged to buy into. I feel we become desensitized to them because of this. The capitalistic nature of this country and its citizens doesn't help in the slightest. We care about ourselves first and foremost.
When an anti-hunger infomercial is on, I am torn. On the one hand, I can't stand to watch because I hate seeing others in pain. On the other hand, the advertiser inside of me is amazed by the strategies that the TV producers put into grabbing my attention. In the article, 'How Mass Media Destroy Activism' I was interested and agreeable with their point that so many people are compassion fatigued because of these and other attempts to get our help and money. In an ideal world, each of us would have the chance to travel to second world countries and personally help instead of relying on activist rallies and fliers. However, I know that this is not possible or probable. A simple example of our compassion fatigue can be seen any day of the year in the center of our big cities when thousands upon thousands pass the homeless. With so many people asking for our help and pleading for their case, is it any wonder that we have become resistant to their pleas? It reminds me of a time when I was a child. I grew up in a tiny town on a farm without any type of media interaction except when I went to school.When we saw someone in need, there was no question about whether we would help them or not. One day, my father took us to the neighboring town to stop by Burger King as a treat. As we sat down with our food we noticed a homeless man going through the garbage outside. Immediately my father grabbed out sandwiches and ushered us outside to offer them to this man. In a town that small, any person who acted like they needed help really did. It took me years to stop my heart from pounding before I could pass a beggar or tell someone 'no' once I moved to the city. I think the problem with our compassion fatigue today is that we are bombarded with sympathetic messages wherever we go through every media imaginable. The sad truth is that many of them are scams. Instead of contemplating whether we should give $10 to the Red Cross or the Children's Miracle Network we spend it at the mall for ourselves instead.
Okay, there is a SaraMcLaughlin Meme that sums up "compassion fatigue" perfectly but there may or may not be a bad word in it, so I will refrain from posting it. BUT it references the commercial she's in about adopting and giving to animals in shelters. I think we all have compassion fatigue in issues that don't impact us personally. We all know there are African villages and puppies that need our help, we hear about them all the time. So when another commercial or ad pops up, our eyes glaze over and we change the channel. But when disasters hit the US or people we love, then it's new. We care.
In reaction to the article, it seemed to be a lot of extra drama. Let people care about what they want to. That's why there's a magazine industry. That's why millions read about a stay-at-home-Mom's life. And guess what, what one person views as pointless may be the center of someone else's existance.
We do live in an information overload each and every day. There are so many news sources and abilities to gain knowledge. The internet provides an instant answer to any question you may have. My best friend says there's no reason you can't know something; Google is a few clicks away. I feel like life might have been more simple back 100 years ago, but they probably weren't as knowledgable as we are today.
Thoughts while reading- Haven't we always had an imbalance of information. The church used to be the only one with access to scripture. The rich could afford the paper- or books. With the internet with have the most free information we have ever had, and yet some still don't have access. Seems to be just a fact of life. I know its sad that I get all my news from the Colbert Report but, I find the real news coverage depressing. And yet I know many people just like me. Are we all living unknowledgeable? Or has there just been a shift in the way we receive information. Is being entertained to death a real thing??
"Advertising, he believes, gives children "their basic grasp of the world's meaning" and this meaning is: 'humans exist to work at jobs, to earn money, to get stuff.'" Okay so being in Advertising I feel the need to defend it. Advertising makes media possible, and vise versa. They need each other. But I also see his point.
I had never thought of Compassion fatigue as an effect of our media. However on one episode of 30 Rock this was brought to my attention. Jack the head of NBC decides that they need to prepare a telethon so general that it can be used for any disaster. So that their channel could be the first, to cover it. It obviously turns into a comical disaster. However I think it proves the point that we do want to care- however we end up caring more about which celebrity is over the charity than what the charity is itself.
I have definitely felt compassion fatigue in my life. As I try to read the NYT or the WSJ on a daily basis, I have found myself skipping over more and more articles relating to wars, hunger, and other problems in the world. It is not that I don't care, I just have reached a point that I feel like there is nothing that I can do. Even those who have gone to great efforts to produce social change in other countries have not seen much success. The Kony 2012 efforts, for example, involved thousands of people but did not make any significant change in the lives of the African children--at least not the level of change that they were hoping for. Even this type of activism is probably just causing high levels of slacktivism; Individuals feel like they are contributing but are really not doing much. While the information overload that we are experiencing may be thwarting activism in the United States, it is probably better than if we were unaware of the events that were taking place in the nation and in the world. In the end, it is up to us to decide what information is worth consuming and how we will act on it.
I agree with all the points Peter Mann put forth about the negative effects of mass media. One argument in particular I agree with is the "infotainment" idea. Too much "news" is focused on celebrities or movies or scandals, rather than the issues that are really important. This enormous amount of focus makes it difficult for the general public to remain informed about global issues, rather than the latest gossip. I find myself falling into this category often as well--its much easier to find out about the Lindsey Lohan scandal than what is really happening in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteAs for compassion fatigue, one of the main examples that comes to my mind is that of the relationship between caregivers and patients. With such an emotional overload all the time, it can become waring and hard to feel as invested in the well being of the patient anymore. I'm not really sure what the solution to this problem is--maybe simply starting with recognition and awareness of this problem?
I thought this article was very interesting because I have never made the connection of how mass media can destroy activism. The article stated that the successful activism is founded upon people understanding issues that actually mean something to them which fuels a desire to take action. Unfortunately the way media has progressed it takes a lot of time and reading to develop a core understanding of an issue which many people resort not to do. I agree with the points made about how we experience information overload and the negative impact this has on developing a deeper knowledge on a variety of subjects. With constant media access at our fingertips I feel that our generation knows a little about a lot of things. I asked a friend about compassion fatigue and he mentioned the example of the Salvation Army and giving to charities. We all have seen during the Christmas season the Salvation Army standing outside of stores ringing bells to draw our attention. So often this becomes a part of the normal landscape that we ignore it. I think people have become skeptical of certain charities questioning where their money goes. Ultimately it comes down to people's own choices to decide whether or not to give, but I think organizations could do a better job at appealing towards people by showing the positive results of what is being done with donations. If I saw how the Salvation Army directly influenced a family in my community it would connect with me much more and I would be more likely to help in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there can be some positive effects of mass media, however, I do agree with the five things Mann points out as problems that stem from the mass media. These negative effects are very real, and I didn't recognize all of them until he mentioned them. I do feel like sometimes I consume mass media and reporters will throw out words or topics that I don't know much about. So I understand the information, but don't really comprehend it. I think that many people can talk about certain topics without really understanding them. I saw this a lot last year when discussing our nations issues surrounding the presidential debates. It amazed me how much information was just regurgitated from the media and how people did not understanding the meaning behind it.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that our society is avoiding reality by turning things into entertainment. The "scary" things that the news talks about can be brushed under the rug and avoided by just making them funny or mentioning them on a television show. People don't grasp what is going on. They also don't understand the purpose in this life. I liked his point about kids watching TV. How they only understand that their purpose is to grow up and make money so they can buy what they see in society and on TV. These are HUGE negative effects that have a very large impact on all our lives.
I think compassion fatigue can be seen in many instances. Where people turn away from reality because its too hard to handle emotionally. And because they turn away they don't seem to understand the real issue. When people face hard, emotional issues, they sometimes avoid either facing them or learning about them because its just too hard on their emotions or personal feelings. Such as a person with cancer refusing help because they are in denial, or a mom refusing to talk to their kids about drugs because they turn away from the scary fact that these things face kids today in the corrupted world we live in.
I felt that the author of the article made several valid points in regards to how the media focuses on the wrong things to promote their own agendas, whether they are political or financial. I also think that the author was a little over-the-top. He generalized the most negative aspects of the media to promote his own personal viewpoints of what he thought was important, which I think is fairly hypocritical. I do think though that the media is obsessed with material that has no value.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to compassion fatigue, I think it’s highly plausible for someone to stop viewing uncomfortable material in the media because it’s difficult. People don’t in general tune in to the news to hear about depressing material. We tend to stay within our comfort zone and refrain from exposing ourselves to uncomfortable content. The media shares fluff content because people want fluff content. I don’t know what would have to happen to change the norm.
It was interesting reading this article because I felt like it talked about many of the things we got to discuss in our other PR classes, largely that of agenda setting and framing. It's completely true that the majority of the media focusses on things that they deem important and they believe we should be thinking about. And because of this, the mentality of many people today has shifted to, "humans exist to work at jobs, to earn money, to get stuff." And this stuff is brought to us through different media outlets, one main outlet being TV commercials. The author believes that these commercials have become some sort of an escape from the scary and terrible reality of what is our world today. And because of this, I do think that compassion fatigue is a real thing and can be seen quite commonly. Whether its an emotional struggle or just because they do not quite understand what is going on (due to the major overload in information provided for us through the Internet, social media, TV, etc.), many people tend to filter out info that they believe will harm their personal "happy" view of the world. And I think this is something that the media is quite aware of, hence all of the trash TV, talkshows, reality TV, etc., that all act as escapes to a safe place for many people.
ReplyDeleteI thought this provided a very interesting perspective. The idea of "information overload" as a suppressant of activism makes sense to me. I particularly identified with the line, "An information glut masks a huge deficit of 'socially necessary information'." It is true that, at some point, my mind just shuts off to it. I try to consume news in order to stay "informed," but sometimes I am overwhelmed by the massive amount of emails or posts in my RSS feeds. I feel like this definitely leads me to consume more palatable information (much like the text's 'infotainment') because it is easier to process and understand quickly, and does not require much reflection or action on my part.
ReplyDeleteAs for the idea of "compassion fatigue," I think the general population finds rationalizations for not acting on the poverty/hunger messaging. I know this is the case with me. I assume that someone else will take care of it, or that I couldn't do much to help, anyway. At the core of it, I think the idea of "compassion fatigue" is accurate in one particular sense: we become desensitized to such messaging through overexposure. After a while, we see it in the same way we do a movie. It elicits an emotional reaction, but is completely disconnected to our actual lives.
I thought the idea of "working to get stuff" was very insightful. We are constantly viewing advertising and reviews for more and more things we want. This is causing us to stretch thinner and thinner, becoming more consumeristic, even to the point of going into debt. When we have placed ourselves into such a situation, we don't feel as though we are in any position to lend a hand of aid to impoverished countries.
My initial reaction to the article was, why am I majoring in what I am? I enjoy my major and see a need for public relations in the professional world but so much of what public relations practitioners do deals with the media. It seems like in the Media Effects class I took and in this class much of what we have read and discussed about media is negative. It is causing people to not think for themselves and the messages portrayed in the media aren’t even the most important ones. The other day in class, you asked us if any of us knew what had happened in international news. The only thing I knew about from the news was Manti Te’o and his fake girlfriend. I could have searched a bit more to find out about international news, but it seemed everywhere I turned, that was the top story.
ReplyDeleteAs far as “compassion fatigue” goes, an example I can think of is immigration. I served my mission in Southern California speaking Spanish, so I grew to love many people who immigrated to the United States. I had compassion for their situation, even to those who immigrated here illegally. When I got home from my mission, there was a big uproar in the news about immigration. But it seemed that people didn’t want to hear about it. I would get on Facebook or Twitter and see many posts mentioning how tired they were of the immigration talks. I wonder how many voters made uninformed decisions about the new immigration laws because they were so tired of hearing about it, they refused to learn more about it.
I think to get around “compassion fatigue,” the media would have to make a change in how they present the news. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. Since the news is a successful business, they will keep glamorizing what is bringing the audience in, which, for the most part, are the hosts.
I found this particular article to be an insightful look into the unique challenges of activism. I felt that the entertainment news in particular rang true to me even though I am by no means interested in celebrity news I feel that I am still inundated with the all of the latest scandals. While working on a class advertising project Choice Humanitarian we also ran into a lot of these issues while strategizing ways to get young people in particular to care about humanitarian work. We found that a lot of times young people were taken back by so much information of some of the negatives things happening in the world such as poverty, crime and injustice that they almost subconciesly didn't want to bother thinking too much about it. It wasn't until the stories were humanized that felt they could and should take action.
ReplyDeleteCompassion fatigue is real and there is no denying that activism fighting poverty or other global issues is an uphill battle. Perhaps it is because true activism requires effort and conscious thought to create change that it is easier to think of happiness in a Coca-Cola world where it is only a bottle away. To avoid this we need to use mass media to awaken audiences to the reality of the world we live in without dumping them into too much despair. In a perfect world everyone would understand that news of something bad happening in a less fortunate place means we need to pitch in and help out however we can instead of merely saying "what a shame." and then forgetting it all together.
Mann makes a lot of valid points in this article. I like what he says about information inequality. Mass media really does control what we think about. What the media deems important is what is broadcasted across all the news outlets. The nature of mass media is that it is so easily accessible, so people aren't going to spend a ton of effort looking for news that isn't highlighted on TV/the internet. Compassion fatigue is a direct result of the information overload that exists in the world today. People can turn away from the scary news because there is SO much to be distracted by. We have so many choices as to what media we want to consume. I can see in my own life, growing up in this age of information overload, how I really am clueless as to what real issues exist in the world. I could tell you more about the latest celebrity gossip than world news. While the media shoulders some of the blame, I think people need to also make personal choices as to not encourage compassion fatigue. The changes we have seen in the media are not random, they are a result of what people want. I think it's not only a reflection of mass media, but our society as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis article brought up a number of interesting points regarding the media that aren't generally thought of when talking about activism. In his first point, Mann brings up the idea that information isn't necessarily knowledge. My Media Effects class had an interesting discussion the other day of this same topic, although our conversation was geared more towards media bias and how that influences understanding. My teacher drew on the example of somebody who relies entirely on one news source and then claims to be an expert on a particular topic. Obviously, this is not the case. That person is likely gathering their information from some sort of biased news source that has predicted how readers will react to the story - and have written the story accordingly. Successful activism requires a full understanding of a situation as well as support from others; I don't think either of these can really come without sorting through the information overload to seek out the facts from multiple sources. This ties in well with his second point, which points out that "infotainment" has cut some of the substance out of the media.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the article highlighted many of the unique challenges that NPOs face. On the one hand, celebrity endorsements and "infotainment" bring much-needed publicity to NPOS, however, such coverage can give consumers the impression of "compassion overload," thus having the opposite effect of what the organization wanted. I think that the article made an interesting point when it cited that consumers don't actually experience too many requests for donations, however, I think that because such requests can be emotionally taxing, consumers often turn away from these appeals. An example of this "compassion fatigue" is the Sarah McLachlan animal cruelty commercials. They are often made fun of in entertainment media because they have become so taxing for viewers. I think that the only way around the perceptions of "compassion fatigue" is for NPOs to remove a lot of the "infotainment" appeals in their donation requests and appealing to the public with more genuine appeals.
ReplyDeleteEvery morning before class I turn on CNN International and watch a little morning news. My roommates are always upset that they aren't watching something mindless like ESPN or a show on Netflix. It is depressing to know we only want to be entertained. I am guilty of it as well. I think of my classes. If there isn't class discussion, interesting powerpoint slides or a video then i'm bored. We live in an 'infotainment" world. A perfect example is the incident with Manti Te'o and his fake girlfriend. With so many real issues happening domestically and foreignly, most of us focused on this pointless story. Even I was hooked on it. Terrorists in Algeria held hostages and almost no one knew about it. That's a problem. Nowadays news gives us too much information and, like the article mentioned, we do nothing. It deprives us of becoming active. If we were not being constantly fed pointless information, we may have been more active. The solution is difficult however because this "infotainment" world has become part of our culture. The only way to really change is to become self aware of our problem and fix it.
ReplyDeleteMedia doesn't tell us what to think but they tell us what to think about and how to think about it. This is one of the points the author makes, and one that I think is growing truer every day. As I pursue a degree in journalism, it is clear that readers are no longer captivated by "hard news." At The Daily Universe it is the stories that are trendy and fun that get the most hits, and many people claim to pick up the paper for the Police Beat and sudoku puzzles. This is even more true based on the fact that audiences no longer have the read the paper or watch the local news station to get information. The Internet allows us to choose our interests and ignore the rest. As the author said, some consumers are hungering again for real news, and it is the responsibility of news organizations to give real content and not entertainment fluff. If they fail to do this, there may not be need for them in the future.
ReplyDeleteJennifer Riggs
I really enjoyed reading the authors arguments in this article, I liked the argument that there is too much information but not enough knowledge. I think we can fill our minds with information we receive through mass media and yet we find we have very little knowledge of real issues in the end. Ultimately, like it said in the article, the media does not tell us what to think but it does tell us what to think about and how to think about it. I also completely agree with the argument about "infotainment" in how entertainment shows have taken over hard news stories because we are hooked by celebrity and power. I think this goes hand in hand with the term "compassion fatigue" where people are turned away from stories of hunger and famine. In the end they combat these stories by turning them into infotainment and using a celebrity front for these stories, so that the real attention is on the celebrity and what cause they are supporting. I dont really remember seeing any instances of compassion fatigue (other than the classic Sarah McLachlan dog informercials) which I am usually turned away from anyway. I dont see of any way to get around this issue, there is news that many are wanting to share, but if it makes people turned off from these stories and not want to donate to a cause then is it really worth it to share?
ReplyDeleteThis article is very interesting and very true to a certain extent. We truly are in an age where there seems to be too much information. For any topic we can go online and find hundreds of pages on the topics all contradicting the other. Instead of helping us to understand, much of the time it is causing more confusion, therefore making information not necessarily be knowledge. Because of this increasing wave of information we have also needed to place filters on what we allow to enter since we simply don't have the space or mental capacity for all of it.
ReplyDeleteThough much of the time it makes us passive viewers, I also feel that media can cause us to rise up and rebel in a manner of speaking. As can be seen with the recent shootings, the way the media spins a story or the focus they decide to put on it can actually cause people to act, or change their minds. However this only occurs on what seem to be major topics.
I had a mixed reaction about the article. He seems to be fully attributing a lack of activism to mass media. In reality, it is likely that mass media has an effect on activism, maybe even significant. However, I wouldn't be quick to agree that it is to blame for everything. I actually think it is useful and productive in promoting activism in many cases.
ReplyDeleteIn one second the author talks about how when the media covers starvation that they don't focus on the issue, and the next he talks about compassion fatigue. I think you're much more likely to get people to support a cause when you look at the positive side than focusing on a really heavy issue. I know it's sad, but I think an indirect approach might help avoid compassion fatigue.
Honestly, I don't like this article. I disagree that the news doesn't have enough stories on poverty and hunger because I feel like all the news seems to cover these days is sensationalism and explosive social issues. The problem with emphasizing social issues in media is the it makes people think it's the government's job to take care of all of these problems, when really it's just the government's job to protect. I thought the role of the news was to be a "government watchdog" but instead, the news has become the mother to the government, trying to act like their pundits have some form of power to make legislation, especially when it comes to heart wrenching stories about people. How often do they report on someone who has achieved the American Dream?
ReplyDeleteAs far as compassion fatigue, I feel it. In a world where people are stopping you on every corner with advertisements to "save the puppies" or "feed a child for a year" you almost have to push it all out of your mind to stay positive. This is not a good quality we are developing, but it's also not good that every advertisement has some form of pathos that manipulates our feelings. If these were less common, we may actually respond. Before I traveled to southern Africa last summer, I took a culture class that told me "don't give money to the homeless people you see. There are so many you'll end up with no money at all." This hardness is a form of compassion fatigue because we are just taught to brush it all off for our own benefit. I haven't come up with a way to change this, other than to limit the amount of media in our own lives so we can be more Christlike and unhardened.
What is your reaction to the article? Do you know of any instances of "compassion fatigue?" Is there any way around that?
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I agreed with what this article was talking about. I don't necessarily agree with everything the author says 100%, but I do agree with the main point he is trying to get across. Too often the news is focused on entertaining then it is on talking about real issues. I also feel like the news focuses too heavily on style and show then it does on substance. The news is supposed to serve the purpose of being a watchdog for our country, and while it is important that we know about crimes and fires and other things that are normally covered, it should spend more time informing the people of issues in government and society that he have control over.
I definitely understand what he means by "compassion fatigue" too. When I think of this I think of the dog commercials that Sarah Mclachlan sings in. The real issues of the world are almost glamorized by celebrities intervention. Maybe it's a good way for the causes to gain recognition, but I feel like by putting a celebrity up and front it makes the viewer focus on the person, rather than the issue. As the article states we should escape virtual reality and move into real reality. Problems are changed and improved through action, not through watching a television set. In my opinion, television shows, movies, create such fake realities, that even when news stations are trying to be serious they aren't taken as serious because of the medium in which they are used. It is hard for people to separate television entertainment from television news.
I have mixed feelings about the article. I understand what he means by a lack of activism, we get so overwhelmed by the amount of information that is being thrown at us, and then we just cannot act on it, we just need to learn more about it. On the other hand the amount of information in the media also encourages activism. It is those news about hunger and poverty that move some groups to rescue that people who are endangered.
ReplyDeleteAbout the way we receive information, the author argues that media makes us think one way or the other about some topics, and this really limits our knowledge. Growing up in a country where the politicians would sometimes block some information from the people, our knowledge was limited. I believe on the other hand, that it is up to us to research a topic enough to have knowledge and not just information. But again, the whole research might limit our activism.
I agree with a lot that was discussed in this article. The media doesn’t tell us what to think just what to think about. If the media is constantly showing things about celebrities obviously we will end up thinking about them the majority of the time. It appears to me in order to really learn about the world and read something of substance the viewer or reader has to search that information out. Although, I guess hat contradicts what the article says about information overload, which I also agree with. I think society gets bombarded with all this information and then in the end they really are more confused because there are so many different aspects to see and hear about. I think what needs to be done is take that information and sort through it and find out what it really means. I have seen instances of “compassion fatigue” because if someone hears a story too many times they can just end up tuning it out which creates the opposite effect the media is probably trying to achieve. But it leaves the media in a hard place because they are suppose to report about what’s newsworthy and going on at the exact time, but they don’t want to bombard their audiences. I’m not sure what the way around it is, I feel like anything it’s on the audiences part to overcome this fatigue. How do they do this though? I guess they could just add variety into the topics of their media consumption. Honestly, I don’t see a way around compassion fatigue for any topic. The media has to do its job and the audiences will consume what the media puts out, until they get tired of that subject or topic.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your reaction to the article? Do you know of any instances of "compassion fatigue?" Is there any way around that?
ReplyDeleteI have a mixed reaction to this article. I agree that the media can only show us topics to think about, but it has no real control about what we do think about. If someone shows me a picture or starts talking about a topic, I am going to think about that topic. It works the same way with media.
This biggest thing I took from this article was in the "57 Channels and Nothing On" section. Television can teach people a specific way to see life which may not always be the most effective. But mostly, I took from this section that people need to spend more time together. People are the greatest influencers available, not the media. Media can show us what to think about, but people can convince you what to think.
The article had a few very great points about the way our society consumes information. I agree with many of the points made about our mass media and especially with the point made about the way the media decides what and who we watch. I too, am one who is guilty at times of being more interested in Brad and Angelina’s adoptions in foreign countries than most of the hard news stories, but that is what we are being fed as consumers. I think one of the reasons the celebrity concept, or “infotainment” does so well is because consumers feel like they know celebrities, and if they can relate with something/someone they are going to be a much more loyal consumer. If a consumer is simply watching a segment about what is going on in the Middle East it doesn’t seem as pertinent to their lives.
ReplyDeleteAs for the concept of compassion fatigue, there is no doubt that the “hard hitting” global news is perceived as less and less vital to our daily lives. I think that it is up to us, as the consumer, to decide what media we want, and to support that media. With that being said, it is the job of the media to be journalists and to present the reality of what is going on in the world around us.
One of my big reactions to the article was about the news showing only celebrity information. I do not agree with this totally. Yes, the news tells us information about celebrities but it is not always the main focus. When you turn on stations such as CNN, Fox News and MSNBC they are often reporting stories of national and international interest. I actually feel that most of the time I am seeing stories on war, poverty, etc. and not on celebrities. Obviously, on some shows like the Today Show or Good Morning America they include celebrity news but they always start off with the hard hitting news. I think the news does inform people of what is happening around the world. I know the news is trying to push their own agenda with what they show but they are still informing people.
ReplyDeleteAs far as compassion fatigue, I do think that a lot of the news is being viewed as less important. I currently work at a non-profit in Provo doing public relations and often it is hard to get news about what we are doing published. A lot of the reporters do not seem to care about food drives, etc. They want to publish what their readers and viewers think they want and not what should always be shown.
I completely agree with the article. There is so much information around us, it can very easily overwhelm you. I am very interested in sports, there are so many places to read articles and watch information it is outrageous. Even if I spent all day trying to absorb all of the information, I would not have time. The information around us can enhance our lives so much, but at the same time too much of anything is not good for you. I see people around me that try to keep up with everything it seems they spend their lives just trying to keeping up the keeping up. I find it pretty outrageous that we have decided to occupy our lives with other people's lives and what they are doing.
ReplyDeleteI have seen compassion fatigue in my own life. Because you see so much media, you get "turned off" to things like car accidents, murders, fires, etc. This can pose a problem with having no compassion, but when you see the same thing everyday it tends to lose its impact.
The article was eye opening and a bit entertaining. I remember learning about a few of these principles in my Media Effects class. Sure the news can't tell you what to do, but they can tell you what to think about. As far as infotainment goes it's so true. I can see people talking about celebrities, brands, and other nonsense over what is really happening around us. Also I was surprise to see the twist at the end that all this can go into poverty and hunger. The article for me drove the message home and did it in a way that could be applied to other factors we tend to ignore in our media consumption.
ReplyDeleteCompassion fatigue I don't know what it is, but I'm probably the worst person to answer this question. When I see news stories about murders, hunger, or anything that is traumatic, I don't seem to care too much. It doesn't affect me in a way that I want to go out and do something about it or even discuss it. I don't feel I'm heartless and have no empathy or sympathy. My life tends to be more focused on those who are closer to me, family, friends, classmates, co-workers, etc... people that I can communicate with and actually have a verbal or visual contact. I maybe desensitized from the things I watch or the games I play or music I listen too, or I maybe filled with useless infotainment, but I don't feel that's it either because I reach out and do what I can to serve others within my own community and I of course don't participate in violent acts or care to.
How to solve the problem I really not sure. We're all different we react to different things. It's hard to understand and may all come down to raising righteous families and being there for friends.
I most definitely agree with his point number 1. Big corporations and news chains chose what they will broadcast and therefore dictate what we should be thinking about. This is agenda setting at its finest. They directly tell us what to think, but what to think about and how to think about it. As in the article it says that we suffer from information inequality. We have the information but we don't have the knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard the term infotainment and that really struck me. It is so true that people strive to be like celebrities these days and not like their parents or another family member etc. Important substance is being replaced by entertainment.
People don't want to know about the sad and horrible things that are going on in developing countries or even in our own. We are selfish people. We want things that will make us happy and don't want to have to worry about somebody else. Americans most definitely have compassion fatigue. How many times have you changed the channel when the orphans in Africa commercial comes on? We change the channel not because we don't care about them, but because we don't want to feel guilty. It doesn't make us happy, and so we move away from it. Compassion fatigue is definitely real and I completely agree with everything in this article.
I definitely agree with a majority of what this article is trying to say. Information overload is totally real. Anyone who says it isn't today must be avoiding all forms of media. When I go on Facebook sometimes after ten minutes or so I ask myself why in the world am I looking at this random person from high school's pics from a recent vacation? Totally unnecessary and stupid and uninformative. But we all get sucked in. On pinterest we find tons of ideas, but how many of them do we actually read, learn how to do it, and finally make the it. Hardly ever. Infotainment, all I can say is Stephen Colbert. Best way to get the news if you want facts and entertaining, which most Americans do today.
ReplyDelete"Compassion fatigue" reminds me of an SNL skit where they mocked the commercial of the sappy song and pictures of injured, homeless dogs. Obviously it's meant by activists to have an effect, make a change, but mostly just desensitizes us to mangy looking dogs. Is there any way around it? I'm not sure there is through mass media. A few years ago my family went to Africa for a humanitarian trip. The images will always stick in my mind because they were real. I experienced the poverty, hunger, and destitute living conditions that these children have to endure their whole lives. Nothing is like real life.
I think this article makes some valid claims, but in some parts seems a bit too dramatic. I do agree with earlier points in the article about the media controlling what we think and how we think about it. It is scary to think about the amount of control the media has on our flow of information. We only get what they give us and then it is up to us to sort through it, decide what is important and not, and what is right what is not. I do agree that our news has been taken over somewhat by "infotainment". Hard news is in some ways becoming lost and exchanged for stories about celebrities and less harsh and realistic topics.
ReplyDeleteAround point #4, this article started to lose me. It stated that to nurture activism, we must subvert mass media, by talking back to the tv or turning it off, seeing through commercials, and refusing the "self-evident truths" of media spokespeople and political establishment figures. I think that rejecting the media entirely and overthrowing it is a dramatic call to action. I absolutely believe that the media had too much control and has the capability to squash activism, but it isn't as heinous as this articles makes it seem. People should be able to consume media while also having the mental strength to sift through the messages and act accordingly.
I am sad to admit that I experience "compassion fatigue" when I read People magazine. People magazine mingles stories about celebrities with stories of ordinary people, usually including the latest major tragedy. I find myself skipping past the devastating stories of the normal people because I would rather read the magazine as an escape into a world of famous people so different from myself.
Honestly, my immediate reaction to this article was that there is truth in it but the article takes it to a complete extreme. It attributes some things completely on mass media that just are not completely the fault of the mass media. In example, saying that mass media is all "infotainment" or that it is the reason people don't view news of a more serious nature is false. It's true that there is more news of it now but if you watch a regular news hour it's not all, or even a majority, celebrity focused. Mass media isn't even the cause. Before celebrity news people would just gossip about each other. Mass media hasn't changed this human desire. It has just provided an outlet.
ReplyDeleteIn a way the term "compassion fatigue" doesn't work. Do I know of instances where people have become fatigued by the depression/oppression/poverty/sadness of the world? Sure. There are many people, my grandmother included, that have decided to forgo the nightly news because of the empty feelings it gives them and the lack of uplifting stories. I don't know of a single person that dislikes watching happy endings or begrudges poor children being given gifts for Christmas (as just one simple example). Compassion doesn't fatigue people - sadness does. To get around so called "compassion fatigue" news outlets should try to mix in more stories of success. The combination of things to be fixed and hope for them to get fixed would actually do more for activism than just showing images of the problem.
My reaction to this article is amen and amen. With information readily available to everyone about any topic, everyone gets to be an expert. This information overload is especially prevelant on the Internet, specifically on social media sites. In a place where everyone feels like they know more than anyone else, all you see is empty rhetoric and petty arguing. I think as the information rises, so will Facebook fatigue and other instances where people get tired of being connected to so many people and hearing everyone's opionins about every story.
ReplyDeleteCompassion overload is the gospel truth too. Last summer I was stopped on the street to help donate for a cause about something and I don't think I had any sort of an immediate response. That is the main symptom of compassion overload--complete lack of emotion.
I agree about the argument that we are overload with information if we want to be. As a student I do not have enough time to spend hours watching TV or reading magazines or newspapers. However, there have been news that have been so big that you heard about them and you go to read about it. For example KONI, if you live in this world you have heard about this kids in Africa. However, I saw it everywhere until I lost interest, and i do not know what happened.However,I believe if a person is really interested in a topic like women issues because they are going through one or someone they know, they would always be update about what is going on. The problem is of all the information we receive which information is the most accurate. Compassion fatigue we all live it because like KNONI we all have hear of amazing touching stories, but they became so popular that at least me I think ok they are gonna get help from big organizations or something like that. Consequently, I loose interest.
ReplyDeleteEric Vincent
ReplyDeleteSomething that stood out to me is when the author says, “People want media to report on the real issues facing the country.” Really? Do they? Perhaps that was the point and responsibility of television and journalists in the past, but I think that today, people are looking to television and other forms of mass media for entertainment and not to necessarily be informed or to get information out there. A major source of news today comes from yahoo.com. Now this site does have several purposes, such as being a search engine, but it is astounding to see the types of stories that made the front page. Of the sixty-five stories on the front page, forty-one were what I would consider entertainment news (stories on celebrities at Sundance, celebrity children, and sports news), while only six stories covered what the author of the reading would consider real or activist news (such things as congressional hearing and what is happening with weapons in North Korea).
People today just seem to want to be entertained. I think a big reason for this is that there are so many options in media today. Early on, in broadcast history, there was more reporting of news or promoting of values and desires. Today, it is more entertainment. I think a big reason for this is the advent of cable and satellite television. There are so many options today that people can move to what is more suitable for them. Sure there are opportunities for political parties or groups to highlight their needs or the good things being done in the world, but far more people seek information that’s content focuses on entertaining.
I’m not sure anyone would disagree with the arguments this article is presenting unless of course they are severely uninformed (irony intended). As students, specifically communication students, we live in constant Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). I know I strive to look at various news aggregating sites in order to be more aware of the world around me, the direction politics is going, technology, international relations, etc. I fear that this article makes a valid point that I am no stranger to: we are too hooked on “infotainment” and suffer from a severe case of “compassion fatigue”. I understand where non-profit organizations are coming from but it is difficult to be passionate about a specific issue when we are bombarded with these heart-wrenching pleas. The infotainment argument is evident in the constant updates about the Manti Hoax. There is even a section on CNN’s website devoted to news clips and updates. The Algerian hostage situation on the other hand, is almost a second thought (as international news often is). American’s in particular have a problem with discounting the importance of the world which I would argue is credited to the mass amounts of infotainment regarding celebrity donors, or your typical celebrity scandal.
ReplyDeleteI think this may be a problem for future creativity and development. I fear that students are becoming “jack of all trades master of none”. We care so much about knowing a little bit of everything that in the end we lose creativity, individuality, we lose our genius, our revolutionaries. It’s no wonder we hear little about those who are making a difference in the world of philosophy, art, or literature, there’s not a news spot for them.
This was an extremely interesting article in mind. On one hand, I can see how the claims made can be validated. On the other hand, I feel there was a lot of drama and over reaction to the realities around us. If people want to know the lives of celebrities, so what? Let them. Clearly they do, and that's why there is an avenue for it. But lets not kid ourselves here, there is much more in the media than this. There is not just one news channel anymore. If we want stories, we can find them. The idea of 'infotainment' is very valid though.
ReplyDeleteAs for 'compassion fatigue', I feel this idea is pretty prevalent in our society today. There is an overwhelming overload of care stories that we are encouraged to buy into. I feel we become desensitized to them because of this. The capitalistic nature of this country and its citizens doesn't help in the slightest. We care about ourselves first and foremost.
When an anti-hunger infomercial is on, I am torn. On the one hand, I can't stand to watch because I hate seeing others in pain. On the other hand, the advertiser inside of me is amazed by the strategies that the TV producers put into grabbing my attention. In the article, 'How Mass Media Destroy Activism' I was interested and agreeable with their point that so many people are compassion fatigued because of these and other attempts to get our help and money. In an ideal world, each of us would have the chance to travel to second world countries and personally help instead of relying on activist rallies and fliers. However, I know that this is not possible or probable.
ReplyDeleteA simple example of our compassion fatigue can be seen any day of the year in the center of our big cities when thousands upon thousands pass the homeless. With so many people asking for our help and pleading for their case, is it any wonder that we have become resistant to their pleas?
It reminds me of a time when I was a child. I grew up in a tiny town on a farm without any type of media interaction except when I went to school.When we saw someone in need, there was no question about whether we would help them or not. One day, my father took us to the neighboring town to stop by Burger King as a treat. As we sat down with our food we noticed a homeless man going through the garbage outside. Immediately my father grabbed out sandwiches and ushered us outside to offer them to this man. In a town that small, any person who acted like they needed help really did. It took me years to stop my heart from pounding before I could pass a beggar or tell someone 'no' once I moved to the city.
I think the problem with our compassion fatigue today is that we are bombarded with sympathetic messages wherever we go through every media imaginable. The sad truth is that many of them are scams. Instead of contemplating whether we should give $10 to the Red Cross or the Children's Miracle Network we spend it at the mall for ourselves instead.
Okay, there is a SaraMcLaughlin Meme that sums up "compassion fatigue" perfectly but there may or may not be a bad word in it, so I will refrain from posting it. BUT it references the commercial she's in about adopting and giving to animals in shelters. I think we all have compassion fatigue in issues that don't impact us personally. We all know there are African villages and puppies that need our help, we hear about them all the time. So when another commercial or ad pops up, our eyes glaze over and we change the channel. But when disasters hit the US or people we love, then it's new. We care.
ReplyDeleteIn reaction to the article, it seemed to be a lot of extra drama. Let people care about what they want to. That's why there's a magazine industry. That's why millions read about a stay-at-home-Mom's life. And guess what, what one person views as pointless may be the center of someone else's existance.
We do live in an information overload each and every day. There are so many news sources and abilities to gain knowledge. The internet provides an instant answer to any question you may have. My best friend says there's no reason you can't know something; Google is a few clicks away. I feel like life might have been more simple back 100 years ago, but they probably weren't as knowledgable as we are today.
ReplyDeleteThoughts while reading- Haven't we always had an imbalance of information. The church used to be the only one with access to scripture. The rich could afford the paper- or books. With the internet with have the most free information we have ever had, and yet some still don't have access. Seems to be just a fact of life.
ReplyDeleteI know its sad that I get all my news from the Colbert Report but, I find the real news coverage depressing. And yet I know many people just like me. Are we all living unknowledgeable? Or has there just been a shift in the way we receive information. Is being entertained to death a real thing??
"Advertising, he believes, gives children "their basic grasp of the world's meaning" and this meaning is: 'humans exist to work at jobs, to earn money, to get stuff.'" Okay so being in Advertising I feel the need to defend it. Advertising makes media possible, and vise versa. They need each other. But I also see his point.
I had never thought of Compassion fatigue as an effect of our media. However on one episode of 30 Rock this was brought to my attention. Jack the head of NBC decides that they need to prepare a telethon so general that it can be used for any disaster. So that their channel could be the first, to cover it. It obviously turns into a comical disaster. However I think it proves the point that we do want to care- however we end up caring more about which celebrity is over the charity than what the charity is itself.
I have definitely felt compassion fatigue in my life. As I try to read the NYT or the WSJ on a daily basis, I have found myself skipping over more and more articles relating to wars, hunger, and other problems in the world. It is not that I don't care, I just have reached a point that I feel like there is nothing that I can do. Even those who have gone to great efforts to produce social change in other countries have not seen much success. The Kony 2012 efforts, for example, involved thousands of people but did not make any significant change in the lives of the African children--at least not the level of change that they were hoping for. Even this type of activism is probably just causing high levels of slacktivism; Individuals feel like they are contributing but are really not doing much.
ReplyDeleteWhile the information overload that we are experiencing may be thwarting activism in the United States, it is probably better than if we were unaware of the events that were taking place in the nation and in the world. In the end, it is up to us to decide what information is worth consuming and how we will act on it.