TotW: Sensationalism

this is fine meme

In a world saturated with sensationalized headlines and clickbait, most of us have developed strategies for filtering out the hype and getting to the raw facts of the content we find. It seems like we should have a general expectation from this that other people also find all of the sensationalism distasteful. Yet we still find roughly the same hoopla all over the place in anarchist spaces. In anarchist articles, report backs, and comments on websites (and not just this one!), so much gets exaggerated, hyperbole runs amok, significance gets inflated, attention is demanded to slow-moving happenings as if they were utterly urgent. Some of this can be attributed to the Great Algorithms ruling the web, but we know that not all of it can. Sensationalism has been a stylistic motif of anarchist expression for much longer than the internet has been around.

Why do we do this?

What would anarchist stuff be like if it were stripped of sensationalism?

Would we become bored with our own cultural output?

Would fewer people pay attention to what we do?

Listen to the conversation here!

There are 18 Comments

Why do we do this?
Because a lot of stuff is dire, worrisome, and urgent, and we're not actually sensationalizing it.

What would anarchist stuff be like if it were stripped of sensationalism?
It would probably be sweetened up with euphemisms.

Would we become bored with our own cultural output?
We are already bored with our own cultural output.

Would fewer people pay attention to what we do?
Possibly.

yeah, i'm drawn to the anarchist media that doesn't do this in a dishonest way?

certainly triumphalism of small gains [or no meaningful impact] because ... well it's catering to emotional needs among other things but i tend to ignore that stuff.

but sensationalism about the problems that need addressing? not really an issue in my experience. i see a world full of very serious problems with little interest or political will from most people and anarchists are the ones who tend to be more active, more ready to critique and have more energy or desire to actually engage, albeit with small scale efforts

so the "sensationalism" might be about attempting to cut through the apathy of the general population, which i lean away from because i hate most people and don't expect much from them

I think it's to stoke up fires because getting anarchy to happen is actually scary at times and we need a little pumping-up. Even if it's "safe" anarchy that you're trying to inspire / instigate, the person acting out anarchy might still stand out from the crowd and people don't even like that. So the sensationalism is kind of, in my mind, a challenge or an invite. Maybe a prancing. Or an expression of love for anarchy. Maybe they feel insecure. On the other hand, as a reality check, some of the driest literature I've ever read has been about anarchy / anarchism. So there is communication for every taste.

That's explained in part in the difference between the rhetoric of those moblizing for a demo or an action campaign, which have a time limit and time schedule, and those academics dosing out parts of their upcoming book in paper format because publish or perish. In the first, analysis is deferred because action is more pressing, and in the latter, action is not in the menu, because they're paying you to write.

I get what this topic is hinting at. I don't know if sensationalism or clickbait is the word I would use. It's certainly something to do with the "WE MUST"s in a lot of write ups. From a distance, one can think a lot of communiques and reportbacks overstate the impact and importance of anarchist action or participation in this or that. But if they didn't think it was as important as they say, they wouldn't be participating in that way. So there is something about fervor and fanaticism, or at least enthusiasm, commitment, and devotion. I don't think they're being intentionally misleading most of the time - like yellow press or clickbait is-, maybe just self-deluded or frenzied.

I migrated to an anarchy that is mostly pedestrian and non-sensationalistic as it's about building an autonomous really free economy. Sensationalism is just spectacle and doesn't feed anyone afaik... unless of course you make the spectae lucrative as per some NFT schemes or whatev. But big money goes to who, then?

mainstream media sensationalizes anything the don't like and calls it anarchist

They also call it "right wing", parroting the stupidity of most anarchists.

no, those are just genuinely your right wing talking points you litter this site with

it would have been helpful if the topic included links of examples of what the consider to be sensationalism vs not. i think in the battle for attention, either you play the game or face the consequences. everyone on youtube has to tweak their titles and thumbnails. people hop on trends and trending topics. sure, fatigue on the part of the spectators is inevitable, but that only means you have to keep playing the game, hopping on to the next trend that gets the click and views. of course, no one’s forcing you to make content and media, specially not as an anarchist.

Is it just me or is the pic/meme with this totw the opposite of what the totw is asking?
Was this topic in the pipeline for a while or did anews go with it because of AB's self-immolation? In which case the meme almost makes more sense, if in somewhat poor taste.

i think the pic is alluding to the notion of bad things and catastrophes happening all around us in the world all the time, and 24/7 news make us hyper aware of them, and the media keeps bombarding us with alarmism of all the bad things going on, and then people being numb and apathetic to all that. does that mean media needs to be more alarmist to stand out?

Who is "media" here? Is not the dog the media? As in, shit it totally catastrophic but media says "This is fine."
Whatever. Interpretation is fun!

Anyway, as I see it, the things that are actually dire (genocide, climate catastrophe, poverty, etc etc) are usually downplayed, as per the meme, but the metaphorical hang nails (who is running for office) are blown out of proportion.

The reactions in media, perhaps including some @ media, are disproportionate to the events themselves, is how it appears to me.

I think the dog is the mainstream audience and the mainstream media facing the world around them. Anarchists are just outside the frame of the picture, doing a bucket brigade with the palms of their hands cupped, sprinkling water on the fire, while there are a few anarchists on the other side squirting lighter fluid, some on themselves, some on the raging fire.

See? Interpretation IS fun.

Would it be said that self immolation is sensational or would it be said that it is part of the spectacle? Both probably, or perhaps neither. Or maybe both and neither at the same time? The telling of the tale in media (mainstream & anarchist) seems to lean toward the sensational. The fight over meaning has already caused sides to coalesce, at least here on anews in the comments and dueling articles.
What am I getting at? Maybe that the meaning is almost always multiple. Like a Rorschach test. Maybe also no act is wholly anarchist. Maybe we sensationalize our acts to convince ourselves alone. The one thing that can be said about self immolation, the conviction required comes before the act.

Without sensationalists, this anthropocentric arrogance about defeating Empires would diminish, things would be more down-to-earth, no illusions, no facade or propaganda, just the Now, the ineffable inner beauty and freedom of our own consciousness.

Add new comment