Twice last week I did something I would normally never do by shutting off my nightly news broadcast after hearing the agenda.

I did it because nearly every story was going to showcase some sort of violence, some example of man’s inhumanity to man. I really didn’t want to be bombarded by that.

We had the murder committed by police officers in Memphis. We had the South Carolina trial of a wealthy man accused of killing his wife and son. We had a bombing in Jerusalem. There were several other examples.

I can’t judge whether or not it was right to load the broadcast up with violent stories. It’s possible that it was justified since all of the stories had significant developments.

It’s also possible that it could have been mixed with stories about politics, the economy and weather conditions.

I want to hear about the latest news from Washington D.C., especially these days about how leaders from both parties have handled classified documents. I want to learn about how people are doing in an era of inflation. I want to know the latest unprecedented weather event that impacts North America.

It’s a decision that journalists make every day. No matter what you normally cover, there’s always plenty of possibilities. We have to make choices as far as what we prioritize.

For that reason, I won’t second guess the national coverage. It’s vastly different from the community news and features that I compile for the Independent.

I meet many nice people. I never have to worry about incidents, about situations when something happened and we have to push for disclosure. There are other very capable people at the paper who handle those instances.

That work is a vital part of any media outlet, large or small. If we told all good things with none of the bad, we wouldn’t be giving readers an honest view of life in our communities.

It’s important to be detailed and comprehensive. People should know the entire story. Anything that’s important to the situation should be included.

Having said all that, I’m still not sure it’s necessary to repeatedly show video footage of violent acts. There’s a point where some viewers might just shrug their shoulders. They might think it’s a modern day norm, just one more in a long line of bad situations.

If too many people become desensitized to violence, it will be very difficult to prevent it. There would be no outrage, no strong feeling that things should have happened differently.

There seemed to be more balance in the broadcasts this week. The Texas ice storm captured a lot of attention. There were more top stories about politics and the economy.

Also I was uplifted by the positive show of support at the Memphis funeral. There’s outrage, but there’s also a determination to try to make the world a better place.

Ultimately it’s the reactions of readers and viewers that help to shape media strategy. We pride ourselves in knowing our audiences. We have a sense of what they’re going to like, or what they’ll appreciate even if it’s something that’s not likable.

If a sizable number of people reacted the way I did last week by turning away, it greatly affects ratings and advertising potential.

That’s why it’s important in all news editions to present the material in a way that draws people in, that makes them want to learn more. The vast majority of time I’m drawn to at least half of what’s on the front page or in news program sound bites.

Journalists in the 21st century serve as windows to the world. We take audiences everywhere that’s the scene of something interesting or exciting.

It’s rewarding when people react and respond to what’s in the news. It shows that people care. That’s the first step toward taking society in good directions.

— Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent