The media must contribute to the healing of society

Our hearts have been scorched once again by the murder of a child. A little girl has fallen victim to a heinous murder. The incident is horrific. Unfortunately, the frequency of such horrific events is steadily increasing. The right to life of tiny children is being ruthlessly taken away. They are torn from life before they even have the chance to get to know it.

Some are sacrificed to sexual abuse, some to family tragedies, some to economic reasons, and so on.

Regardless of the reason, it is clear that this society, this state, and the family institution of this society cannot sufficiently protect their children. The latest example of this helplessness is the Narin murder.

A little girl fell victim to a horrific murder. Following it, there have been endless debates and contradictory statements.

The most dire aspect is that the media has been almost exclusively focused on this single event for days.

The incident is truly grave, and it is right for the media to make it a matter of public agenda, but there seems to be a problem in terms of dosage. While Turkey is shaken by the Narin murder, at the same time, in another part of the country, a two-year-old baby ends up in a coma as a result of sexual abuse by multiple people within their own family, yet it is not given a place on the media's agenda.

Both are children of this country, but one is ordinary, while the other is from a wealthy family. Consequently, one is featured continuously on television screens like a soap opera, while we learn about the other through social media.

This dilemma brought to mind the Münevver Karabulut murder, which occurred years ago and remained on the media's agenda for months, even years. A young girl had been murdered by her boyfriend and thrown into a trash container. Legal processes had begun, the killer had been found and arrested in a short time. However, the incident did not fall off the media's agenda for years. Now I think, if the person who committed the murder had not been from a wealthy family, would it have remained on the media's agenda for so long?

A similar situation seems to be the case for the Narin murder. Some journalists have been in the region for days, reporting. The news being reported and the attitudes displayed regarding journalism have begun to overshadow the event itself.

Some are reporting to the cameras while crying, some are playing the role of the brave and heroic journalist, some are concerned with stealing the spotlight from law enforcement, and some are posing for cameras in tears by the side of the stream where the child's body was found.

The same scene applies to the presenters on television screens. News anchors trying to add a dramatic air to their presentations with tears and screams. You would think it is the first time a child has been murdered in the country.

It is a fact that the tears on the screens no longer affect society almost at all. Because, on one hand, tragic events are never lacking in society anyway. Unfortunately, with murders, earthquakes, and epidemics, society has become desensitized to brutality and violence.

One of the fundamental reasons for this is that this society has been fed with violent TV series for years.

The people of this society have been watching nothing but blood and violence on television screens for years, so how could they be affected by the tears and screams of anchors and reporters? Unfortunately, people have been accustomed to seeing blood and violence and have been desensitized.

On the other hand, it has become almost impossible to see the difference between reality and fiction in the world of media presentation. As in the case of the Narin murder. For days, the media has been presenting news regarding the murder of the little girl with a soap-opera-style attitude. Reporters are supposedly at the scene, but they cannot gather information from the field.

Everyone in the village where the incident took place is silent, so they cannot get information from anyone.

On the other hand, investigation processes are ongoing, and there is no satisfactory information received from the authorities. But television screens have been opening and closing with this event for days.

Information gaps are being filled with commentary. Almost every journalist, reporter, or news anchor is constructing and presenting a scenario of their own regarding the event. But interestingly, no scenario overlaps with another.

The child's family is silent, the villagers are silent, the relatives are silent, the members of the judiciary are silent, but the media is constantly transmitting "information."

Isn't it interesting?

All of this brings to mind that the duties and responsibilities of the media should be reconsidered once again. First and foremost, the media is responsible for transmitting information to society.

To reach the most accurate information possible about what is happening in the world and the country and to transmit it to society.

Because the primary area of responsibility for the media is society/the citizen. Accordingly, the media is an information transmission tool and apparatus. However, as seen in the Narin incident, the media is primarily entering into an effort to prove itself to society.

Consequently, even the most dire events in society unfortunately turn into a show tool for the media on media screens. In other words, instead of being an information transmission tool itself, the media instrumentalizes the events, situations, and circumstances in society to show its own power or existence in some way.

The media has a responsibility to transmit information to society and to contribute to the increase of the level of consciousness and awareness in society. Therefore, the media needs to pay attention to its own content creation and information transmission style and attitude.

Society needs the media. The media has the power to contribute to the solution of problems in society with the information it transmits and the presentation style it adopts. Research has also shown that whatever the media presents to society, society does the same.

If presentations of blood, violence, hatred, malice, discrimination, etc., are made, it is not possible to expect society to behave otherwise. We are not saying here that the media should only present a sunny world.

Of course, it should inform society about what is happening in society. However, media professionals must evaluate the social reflection and impact dimension of every type of content they present from a professional perspective. It is important for the proper distinction between real and fictional content, for the very good analysis of the target audience, and for calculating the impact that the information to be transmitted or the message to be given will create.

The media is an institution that should not only report problems but also contribute to solution proposals for the problem. In this sense, it is important to reach correct news sources and obtain information from experts for both news content and other content.

The media's duty is not to make society cry, not to raise the emotional tension of society, but to lead society to think about events, situations, and problems by transmitting healthy and accurate information to society, and to contribute to the increase of the level of consciousness and awareness in society.

The media's duty is not to cause society to become even sicker, but to contribute to its healing.