We are just a few days into the new year and already we have had to be dealing with unfortunate news about road crashes, crime and violence, and murder and suicide.

Thankfully, our beloved Prime Minister Andrew Holness has reassured us that the country will experience a reduction in violent crimes this year. The same message is regurgitated on special occasions, such as New Year’s Day, but to what extent have we seen any significant decrease in the numbers? Or does he speak to the so-called states of emergency (SOEs) successes, which happened “independently” of the recently concluded FIFA World Cup?

The sanctity of life in this country has become so meaningless to many. The news is very predictable; it is just a matter of who is taken out this time around. It is so scary to go outside these days. But is it much safer inside?

Media houses have a responsibility to keep us informed on matters happening locally, regionally, and internationally. However, citizens sometimes feel as though the news has become too negative and sorrowful. But news is dynamic, time-sensitive, and reflective of the happenings within given contexts. The media, thus, keeps us abreast of different issues.

However, in the same breath, should the media show the readership and viewership any and everything? What of grief porn?

The Urban Dictionary describes grief porn as a sort of masturbatory frenzy engaged in by the media and politicians when there is some sort of disaster. For example, a family has just lost a loved one in a tragedy and the media videotapes the family members grieving — wailing loudly and uncontrollably at times — then shares it online. It is similar to misery porn or misery literature, which dwells on trauma.

Imagine members of the victim’s family inadvertently seeing such a video. It would be devastating to relive such an experience. Who benefits when this is done? Should the media, then, be mindful of content of this nature?

At the same time, the readership/viewership cannot have it both ways. They want to be informed, but they rarely read the written news. Many of them prefer to see videos and pictures, yet they complain that it is too much.

Interestingly, however, it seems acceptable when the media covers stories that involve influencers or high-profile cases of national interest. Apparently we share in this corporate pain; thus, it is fine for media houses to show clips of certain families grieving at funeral services in these instances, but what of others?

We have to also understand that traditional media houses are supported by and, in the same breath, compete with community-based and social media journalism.

There are instances when community members or passers-by share incidents with traditional media houses. Other times, people share information on their social media pages or through popular vloggers. If traditional media does not report on certain matters, it will be said that journalists are lazy and not doing their job.

So where do we draw the line? Should we report or not? Either way, the Internet is so powerful that information is circulated in a wink. We will learn of it somehow. It is just that traditional media houses tend to have a wider audience, so it is better when information is channelled through credible and reputable outlets.

Oneil Madden is interim chair/head of Department of Humanities and lecturer in language(s) and linguistics at Northern Caribbean University. He is also a PhD candidate in applied linguistics at Clermont Auvergne University, France. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or maddenoniel@yahoo.com.