Media coverage more stressful for some than witnessing a horrendous tragedy!

Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings: A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences  (USA) by
E. Alison Holmana, Dana Rose Garfinb, and Roxane Cohen Silverb  says so!

According to these researchers:
Media coverage of collective traumas may trigger psychological distress in individuals outside the directly affected community. The researchers examined whether repeated media exposure to the Boston Marathon bombings was associated with acute stress and compared the impact of direct exposure (being at/near the bombings) vs. media exposure (bombing-related television, radio, print, online, and social media coverage) on acute stress. They conducted an Internet-based survey 2–4 wk post bombings with a nationally representative sample and representative subsamples from Boston and New York (4,675 adults). Repeated bombing-related media exposure was associated with higher acute stress than was direct exposure. Media coverage following collective traumas can diffuse acute stress widely. This unique study compares the impact of direct vs. indirect media-based community trauma exposure on acute stress responses.

Abstract of the paper:

The researchers compared the impact of media vs. direct exposure on acute stress response to collective trauma. They conducted an Internet-based survey following the Boston Marathon bombings between April 29 and May 13, 2013, with representative samples of residents from Boston (n = 846), New York City (n = 941), and the remainder of the United States (n = 2,888). Acute stress symptom scores were comparable in Boston and New York [regression coefficient (b) = 0.43; SE = 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), −2.36, 3.23], but lower nationwide when compared with Boston (b = −2.21; SE = 1.07; 95% CI, −4.31, −0.12). Adjusting for prebombing mental health (collected prospectively), demographics, and prior collective stress exposure, six or more daily hours of bombing-related media exposure in the week after the bombings was associated with higher acute stress than direct exposure to the bombings (continuous acute stress symptom total: media exposure b = 15.61 vs. direct exposure b = 5.69). Controlling for prospectively collected prebombing television-watching habits did not change the findings. In adjusted models, direct exposure to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Sandy Hook School shootings were both significantly associated with bombing-related acute stress; Superstorm Sandy exposure wasn't. Prior exposure to similar and/or violent events may render some individuals vulnerable to the negative effects of collective traumas. Repeatedly engaging with trauma-related media content for several hours daily shortly after collective trauma may prolong acute stress experiences and promote substantial stress-related symptomatology. Mass media may become a conduit that spreads negative consequences of community trauma beyond directly affected communities.

                                                                                       ****

A study following the September 2001 attacks did give similar results, in which those exposed to 9/11-related TV reported post-traumatic stress symptoms.
There is a good chance that people who suffered from acute stress might have been the people who consumed media coverage as a way of coping with the experience. Sometimes this is beneficial but repeated exposure can push the viewer into a “self-perpetuating cycle of distress”.
The study is not full proof though and you will know why if you click the second source of this article.
However, the study is a good example of how public perception of risk affects how we deal with a stressful event. Research has shown that public perception of risk depends on factors like fairness, ability to control events, trust in institutions that deal with the aftermath, familiarity to the event and if the event is natural or man-made.

In the researchers words: “Media outlets should recognise that repeatedly showing gruesome, distressing images is not in the public interest.”
And the viewers too should switch off the TV after watching a stressful incident once and should not try to to watch it again and again.

                                                                                    ****

After the Oklahoma City bomb in 1995, children experienced the destruction through television screens. This was before the Internet streamed through phones and iPods, and even so, indirect exposure through media profoundly affected many kids. When a research team from the University of Oklahoma questioned middle school children who did not know anyone killed or injured two and three years afterward, about one-fourth remembered feeling “a lot” less safe. Ten percent of children were still feeling uneasy three years later (1). When news coverage shows continuous loops of buildings collapsing, or cars blown around like toys, “you can re-experience it over and over again. For youth, that may create a lot of opportunity for confusion” . Children may think each repeated video clip of destruction is a brand new event.

Children farthest from the event are more affected by media coverage of the disaster, perhaps because they don’t have any other reference point (2).

Read here tips_for_parents_for media coverage .

 
My view : I too felt very stressful after watching a few gruesome incidents on TV and Internet. I learned to switch off the TV and move away from the pages of internet that show these incidents but the images get stuck on my mind and stay there causing distress for several days. Maybe I am very sensitive than several others and the parts of my brain that deal with empathy over - work, but this shows visual effects of tragedies are more stressful than other forms of information.

Source:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/05/1316265110

https://theconversation.com/media-more-stressful-for-some-than-witn...

References:

1. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/kids-news-coverage-ca...

2. http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/86/4/844.abstract