I have a question. It's on of those "Chicken or the Egg" questions. I'm interested to see how you weigh in on it. Here it is--Is the world really getting worse or do we simply have more immediate, in-depth coverage of news than we did in the past?
Let me explain. Thirty years ago, if a major news story broke, we couldn't turn on CNN and get the news 5 minutes later. We wouldn't have had up to the minute coverage of such an event. In fact, unless you lived in that particular city, you would have had to wait until your next newcast or the next day's paper. Because of the internet and nationally linked news correspondents, most big stories are available to the public within moments and that coverage can last for days, weeks, months, even years.
Has this kind of access made us think that these news items didn't occur years ago? Of course, they did. We still had serial killers, mass murders, kidnappings, etc., didn't we? What do you think? What came first--the news story or the coverage?
Your comments--priceless!!
Jewel, I love your snazzy new blog design. Very cool!
I blogged about this very question last year because I wondered the same thing. I think the world is just as violent, but now we have eyes and ears to see and hear about it more so than in the past.
More chickens and eggs. If there isn't coverage, technically it isn't news.
Because there is more coverage of bad things and more outlets to talk about them, we know way more about the evil in the world. Like everyone else, bad people can learn and get ideas from additional exposure. The increase in exposure probably adds to the number of crackpots that want their 15 minutes of evil fame.