‘IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS’: THE DANGERS OF SENSATIONALIZING NEWS STORIES

“If it bleeds, it leads.” This has been a common phrase concerning stories in the news since the 1800s. The premise is that the press tends to feature exciting, usually negative stories, involving danger or anger, which have more potential to be sensationalized. Sensationalism is defined by the Webster’s New World College Dictionary as “the use of strongly emotional subject matter, or wildly dramatic style, language, or artistic expression, that is intended to shock, startle, thrill, excite, etc.” Sensationalism poses a real threat to journalistic integrity: Many news outlets are tempted to publish dramatic, embellished stories to gain traction. To run a successful, honest news outlet, however, one must balance information with engagement, making stories emotionally engaging and interesting without over-sensationalizing.

The biggest reason for sensationalism in the news is ratings. News outlets like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC cannot report pure statistics because their ratings would drop if they did. With low ratings, they would lose advertising revenue and be unable to continue providing information, no matter how factual. In an interview on the podcast “Conan O’Brien Needs a Friend,” CNN anchor Anderson Cooper explained how pursuing better ratings can lead to a more negative slant to the news. “I think people say they want to see good news,” Cooper said. “The truth is, there are actually a lot of good stories that are put out, and I can tell you, the ratings usually drop on those kinds of stories. People don’t actually really respond to those stories, even though they say that that is what they want.” This discrepancy is due to a psychological phenomenon known as the “negativity bias.” People are more drawn to negative information, clicking on negative stories or tuning into news with scary or provoking headlines. This human tendency means that news outlets are motivated to focus on negative stories to generate more engagement, higher ratings, and greater revenues.

Yet focusing purely on engagement rather than accuracy can lead to disastrous results. For example, Dominion Voting Systems brought a lawsuit against Fox News for knowingly spreading misinformation about the 2020 presidential election, which recently ended in a $787.5 million settlement. When asked why Fox News hosted MyPillow founder and conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell, allowing him to spread false information, Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch claimed in his deposition that it was a financial decision. Another way Fox News— especially prime-time hosts such as Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and

Laura Ingraham—contributes to sensationalism is through coverage of social topics that are likely to upset their audience. Many of these issues are frivolous or nonexistent, and the hosts use them to incite anger over the actions of the “woke” generation. These anchors have criticized the female green M&Ms’ wearing sneakers instead of high heels, diversity in the new Lego line, and the “war on Christmas” (referring to the increase in people who say “happy holidays” rather than “merry Christmas”). Their tactics make viewers angry in order to get more views and more money. This approach works: Fox News is continuously the most-watched cable news network in the U.S. However, not only does it sacrifice reporting on real issues for meaningless rants, Fox News’ sensationalism has hurt real people. Their fearmongering over drag queens contributed to the ban on drag in Tennessee. Their tirades over “critical race theory” and LGBTQ+ education in schools has indirectly led to censorship of books in Republican-controlled school districts. The conspiracy theories spread on its network caused many viewers to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, endangering their lives. There is no doubt that Fox News’ sensationalism, exaggeration, and misinformation is harmful to the U.S. and should not be something that news organizations strive to replicate, even if it boosts ratings.

News outlets should minimize sensationalism, though some responsibility falls on the viewer. The Oracle adviser Kristy Blackburn believes that people should learn to distinguish between fact, opinion, and misinformation. “The issue is commentary,” Blackburn said. “When people get into opinions and conflate opinions with news, then that’s where you run into trouble. As a democracy, we need to get a lot better at distinguishing what actual facts are versus what someone’s opinions are.”

Developing media literacy is imperative for people to become informed citizens. With so much information available online, one must be able to understand what is true or false, what is fact or opinion, what is accurate or exaggerated, and what is important or trivial. “It’s really important (that) people are aware of what they’re consuming,” Blackburn said. “That’s not just for news, that’s for anything. Being aware of what you’re consuming helps shape who you are.”

—Written by Jeri Lieberman-Evans, a Writer.