First emotion, then reason: Persuasion, media, and the language of violence reporting

There is a frequently expressed expectation when faced with events that affect public opinion: more data, more analysis, more rationality. As a statistician, I used to think this way too.

However, communication practice, especially in moments of crisis and trauma, shows that this expectation does not find much resonance. As we know, due to the influence of the primitive brain, people often act not with information, but with emotion. This is a phenomenon supported not only by everyday observations but also by both classical rhetoric and modern communication theories.

In his Rhetoric, Aristotle emphasized that the audience must be brought into a certain emotional state before they can be persuaded.

This approach positions persuasion as a product not only of logical arguments but also of emotional preparation. Today, the contemporary equivalent of this approach proposed by Aristotle is offered by the Elaboration Likelihood Model, introduced by Petty and Cacioppo in 1986.

The model suggests that individuals process messages through two different paths: the peripheral path, which relies on superficial cues, and the central path, which relies on deeper cognitive effort. However, the activation of the central path depends on the individual establishing a meaningful connection with the message. This connection is often established through an emotional threshold.

For this reason, a specific sequence is notable in effective political communication: first, the emotional framework is established, and then the cognitive content is inserted. Barack Obama’s speeches are frequently cited as examples in this regard. In his speech following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, he did not start directly with policy proposals; instead, by reciting the names of the children who lost their lives one by one, he invited the audience into a space of emotional partnership first. The political discourse developed later finds resonance on this emotional foundation.

This framework also offers an important analytical opportunity for understanding the media representation of school-based violence incidents that have recently occurred in Turkey and deeply shaken society. Which elements are highlighted in the reporting of such events directly affects how the public will react to the incident.

When looking at media content, we often see that the dramatic aspects of the event are brought to the forefront: the stories of the victims, the statements of the families, and striking details about the moment of the incident. Such narratives quickly involve the viewer or reader in an emotional process. Viewed from the perspective of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, this strategy is not merely about producing a superficial effect; on the contrary, when constructed correctly, it can trigger the central processing path. Emotional engagement can pave the way for the individual to take the issue more seriously and process subsequent information more deeply.

However, there is a critical balance here. If the language of the news focuses only on increasing emotional intensity and neglects the structural context, the resulting effect is often a short-term shock followed by a cycle of rapid forgetting. In this case, the viewer reacts with peripheral cues: anger, fear, panic. But these reactions are insufficient to produce lasting public awareness or policy demands.

In contrast, when systematic information presentation follows the emotional framework, a different picture emerges. For example, the inclusion of elements such as the causes of school violence, risk factors, institutional shortcomings, and preventive policies in the later stages of the news helps the viewer position the issue not just as a “tragedy,” but also as a social problem that needs to be solved. At this point, the central processing path is activated, and more permanent attitude changes become possible.

Therefore, the issue is not whether the media uses emotion or not. Emotion is already inevitable. The real issue is how emotion is structured and to what cognitive content it is connected.

When looking at media discourse through this lens following the recent school-based violence incidents in Turkey, two different tendencies are noticeable: The first is an approach that dramatizes events and keeps emotional intensity constantly high. The second, although more limited, consists of analyses that attempt to place the event in a broader social context. The effects of these two approaches on public opinion are also different: the former produces a rapid and intense reaction, while the latter creates a slower but more lasting awareness.

In terms of communication studies, this situation is not just a matter of representation, but also an area of responsibility. Because the narrative constructed by the media does not just convey what happened; it also shapes how we should think and what we should consider important.

In today’s digital media environment, this process has accelerated even further. While algorithmic circulation highlights content with high emotional intensity, it often pushes more analytical and contextual content into the background. This leads to public debate becoming increasingly reactive and less profound.

In conclusion, a principle that has remained unchanged since Aristotle retains its validity even in the most complex communication environments of the digital age: People feel first, then make sense of things. However, how this process will work depends largely on the quality of the narrative constructed by the media.