Amanda Noelle Clemens (2007-09-17)
The subsuming of key events, termed here Conquests, Contests, and Coronations, by disaster events—Terror, Disaster, and War—is one of increasing relevance for journalists and “civilians” alike. With a twenty-four hour news cycle to fill, disaster coverage of any sort—planned, natural, etc.—becomes a familiar friend to even a casual viewer.
The authors have proposed several viable explanations for why press coverage has turned from planned, integrative events to unplanned, disruptive events. They question whether disasters are really more frequent. They question whether governments are using disaster to legitmize policy. They also whether or not the media relies too heavily on these events to keep or recapture an audience faced with more sources for news than ever before.
Katz and Liebes cover the three new types of trauma mentioned above as a way of exploring these questions. While this examination is thoughtful, it seems to rely primarily on a nominalistic perspective. Nominalism is certainly justifiable as a means to explore the underpinnings of both planned and unplanned—integrative and disruptive—media events as events that are legitimized by our social ideas; in this case, the fascination with big events of all kinds. We legitimize nonstop media coverage when we choose to listen to it or watch it. With the number of competing news organizations, wherever the audience goes sends a message of what they want to see and hear.
However, I think the article would benefit from the inclusion of harder data—particularly for the above questions. Are major disasters more frequent? They are correct in that because we rely on media to tell us what is a major disaster, it is difficult to say. Nevertheless, I think the argument would be bolstered by data that looks at the what media have covered over time that they have labeled “major disaster.” A survey would lend support to the question of whether or not paranoia is more prevalent. In an expanded article, these are certainly steps I would like to see taken to strengthen their argument.
