Do you think the media has any responsibility for riots sometimes?

[toaster little]

I'm watching TV and I thought of something.

When there's a story with a huge controversy, news stations report their findings and have it blasted all over the country. Sometimes they don't need to spread it all over the world but they do it anyway. As we might all know, the media tells only a part of the story and hides details that it does not want people to know. With that said, if they wanted people to think that a suspect is guilty even when he's proven innocent in court and people start a riot, do you think they could be responsible? I feel like they could be taking advantage of the fact that most people will only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe.

People who only watch TV and read things on the internet will believe what they hear, what they read, and what they see. None of them were actually at the scene where things happened, so there's no way for them to know the truth. If the media wanted them to get all worked up and mad at a suspect that was later found to be innocent, it could get a lot of people mad and get them to start a riot. What do you guys think?

[Inscrutable Banana]

Of course they do. Media outlets will push any story that they feel will drive ratings, even if it means potentially working people up into a tizzy. They cherry pick a news item they think will grab attention, focus on parts of the story that fit the way they want to present things and either omit or glance over certain details, and they use dramatic language and various production tricks to spice everything up. It's kind of disgusting, really.

[Heelsbythebridge]

The media has a LOT of power over public perception.

I remember after a sports riot here, the headline in our main newspaper read, "MAKE THEM PAY". It was referring to identifying and persecuting everyone who participated in the riots to destroy our beautiful home, and although I strongly identified with the sentiment, I also later realized how it was possibly encouraging inappropriate vigilante justice. I definitely still don't think much at all at the dumbasses who participated in that shameful event, but I don't think their families should get phone calls harassing them either.

On a bigger example, the 1994 Rwandan Genocide was party coordinated/encouraged through use of a national radio system (the Hutu extremists would spout hate messages through it)- the propaganda was very strong. Of course, to Godwin the thread, the media during Nazi Germany.

Just saying, you're right. People should be able to think for themselves but it's a matter of being human that we are influenced. There's a quote: "When you find yourself thinking on the side of the majority, is when you should take a step back to reevaluate."

[Inscrutable Banana]

To pull a quote from Men In Black: "The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!" I'm sure there's a better source for a similar quote, but MiB is the first thing that came to mind so I'll just go with that.

A concentrated flow of information being directed to a broad audience can easily inspire a mob mentality, and when that happens logic and reason tend to fly out the window. The inability for people to keep their wits about them under such conditions is part of what makes mass media have so much potential for harm (and to be fair, for good when the conditions are right, although I'm inclined to believe that's less often the case). It's never good when the ability to think critically becomes dulled, especially among those who don't already possess a strong predisposition toward critical thinking.