Opinion / Christopher Cermak
Shock tactics
Here’s a case study for my fellow journalists. The scenario: US actor Vince Vaughn was spotted shaking Donald Trump’s hand at a college American football game on Monday (pictured). I offer you two ensuing headlines. From The Guardian: “Uproar after Vince Vaughn shakes Trump’s hand at football game.” And from Vox Media: “Fox News goes to desperate lengths to gin up outrage over clip of Vince Vaughn chatting with Trump.”
Now, it’s true that Fox News is in another league when it comes to “ginning up” outrage – of the Vaughn-Trump exchange, one of its commentators said, “Democrats seem to be more upset at this exchange than they do over Suleimani killing American citizens.” But I would like to focus on The Guardian and Vox. This is a perfect example of why you should be, well, outraged over the media’s coverage of outrage.
There are two problems here. First: many journalists are over-reliant on Twitter. Type in Vince Vaughn and Trump and you’re likely to find someone somewhere sharing their indignation over the encounter. Frankly, it’s lazy reporting. Second: some outlets have become obsessed with writing about “backlash”, “uproar” and “feuds” (though perhaps this is because readers seem to love this kind of thing). Another such Guardian headline from this week: “Stephen King faces backlash over comments on Oscars diversity.”
I don’t mean to suggest that we should never be outraged but, as journalists, we need higher standards. It’s easy to write a kneejerk reaction about “uproar”; it’s far harder to explain the reasons behind it. Take Stephen King. In response to this week’s Academy Award nominations, he wrote that he would “never consider diversity” when it comes to matters of art. He might be wrong but does his view not merit exploration? Personally, I’d rather read an article about why he’s wrong – or right – than the fact that his comment prompted a “backlash”. We deserve better.