Violent crime and war are too explicitly reported.

“Favor”

Introduction
Do you see a lot of news during the day? Hasn't it happened to you that you want to stop
watching them because of their large amount of details that show about the accidents and
atrocities of the war? In these days we have observed how the news has been dedicated to
showing more the body of the deceased than what it happened, regardless of the privacy of
the victim and his family. The news needs to be less explicit when it comes to showing what
happened, but this does not mean that they hide the information from the viewers. At least,
they should try not to morbid what happened.
Argument 1
Contact with violence through any means can lead to what is known as vicarious trauma and
can be, for some people, more overwhelming than an immediate experience. In a study
published in 2013 in the journal PNAS, symptoms were compared of acute stress of those
who had a “direct exposure” to the attack in the Boston Marathon of that year (whether they
had been present in the place or in the Boston area, or that they knew someone who lived it)
with those who were only exposed through the media. People exposed to six or more hours
a day of news related to the attack developed higher levels of acute stress than those exposed
directly. In a study presented at the 2015 annual conference of the British Psychological
Society, Pam Ramsden, a lecturer at the University of Bradford, found that nearly a quarter
of participants who viewed images and videos of disturbing news events on social media,
including those of September 11, school shootings and suicide bombings, reported
symptoms that clinically coincide with those of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Argument 2
The daily avalanche of dramatic, painful and terrible situations that we receive through the
media and social networks makes it increasingly difficult for us to empathize with the people
who suffer them. The UOC sociologist Francesc Núñez said, “empathy has a diminishing
return on bad news. It's like when you buy your second car, which doesn't make you as
excited as the day you bought the first one”. That mean like when you see a lot of bad news
you get used to these events and lose empathy towards the one who suffers it
Counterargument
We have all heard people claiming that people are not affected by the news that they observe
that everything is due to trauma lived or a circumstance that changed it, but this is not entirely
true because there are studies that affirm that the more bad news they see the more people
are affected emotionally. Additionally, according to the University of California Irvine
study, "Repeated exposure to news coverage of collective trauma has been associated with
bad news. Mental health consequences, such as flashbacks, immediately afterward, and
responses to post-traumatic and physical stress health problems over time, even among
people who did not directly experience the event "
Conclusion
As we have observed, the news needs to be less explicit when it comes to showing what
happened. Although some believe that making the news less explicit means hiding
information, they are not correct because to give the information objectively it is not
necessary to show all the atrocities of the events that occurred. We should think how we
would feel if we see the deceased body of a family member of ours circulating through all
the news without respecting their privacy.