麻豆约拍

Comparisons have been made between the news coverage of two tragedies at sea. The first was the capsizing of a boat off the coast of Greece, in which more than 500 migrants from the Middle East and Africa are thought to have drowned. The second is the catastrophic implosion of the Titan submersible carrying five people, including a billionaire explorer, who paid a huge amount of money to see the wreck of the Titanic. While the first story made the news, the second story was rolling news.

Moral Maze panellist Ash Sarkar faced a backlash when she tweeted about what she saw as the 鈥済rotesque inequality of sympathy, attention and aid... Migrants are 鈥渕eant鈥� to die at sea; billionaires aren鈥檛.鈥�

This raises the question of the moral purpose of the news 鈥� particularly when it comes to public service broadcasting 鈥� and the difference between reporting what people want to know and what they need to know. For some, the 鈥榯icking clock鈥� coverage of the Titan tragedy was ghoulish and sensationalist. For others it was merely a reflection of the trajectory of the story: the hope, the endeavour and the jeopardy. Then there is a question of scale 鈥� does a larger body count have a greater moral claim to be covered by the news? Or is it natural for British media to reflect a greater sense of empathy for British citizens?

What makes the news, what is left out, and how it is covered, is a decision made by editorial teams and individuals with their own view of what is 'newsworthy'. But what about our responsibilities as consumers of news? Does the demand for immediate clickbait sensationalism over thoughtful analysis from the other side of the world create a news environment which is out of kilter with what matters? Is this simply human nature or something we should seek to redress?

What news stories should make a moral claim on our attention?

Producer: Dan Tierney.