For me, the coping lies in the decision-making....deciding what's necessary and useful to watch, and what's just plain voyeurism. There are some things, like 9-11, that are critical to know both as they are happening, and in the aftermath. Certainly, when survival or imminent crisis are at issue, I watch. And a certain amount of post-game analysis for many things is warranted where it's necessary in the framing of reality-based views for informed decision-making down the road. Historical context is essential to a society, and is, alas, one of citizenry's civilization's great shortcomings.
Beyond that, even with an incident of national implication, the protracted marathon coverage of every little detail of a tragedy...the endless rehashing and hand-wringing, the meaningless and un-informed speculation and mikes being shoved in mourners' faces asking them how they "feel"--as if the answer isn't painfully obvious--well, enough is enough. When I can't do anything about a situation, when that next bit of new information changes nothing, that's when I get back to taking care of my corner of the world. And perhaps, in those seeming insignifcant daily efforts, lies the only real chance any of us have to prevent our own loved ones' being the next headline.
Up until just recently, most of these national or international stories would have been local stories. There is sadness and tragedy enough in our own lives and our own cities without taking on the burden of the world. It's an unbearable burden and there is a breaking point.
I find it sad, ironic, and sometimes sick that so much of the coverage of tragedy and heartbreak is packaged as a story of coping and healing, when in fact, the relentless coverage itself extended the scope of that hurt. Program directors too often traffic in human suffering or, in cases like Anna Nicole Smith, in the lurid and pathetic. Slowing down to look at a train wreck is one thing; pulling over and setting up a tailgate party is quite another.
So back to your original question. Coping is the art of balance and keeping a problem manageable. And that means not actively nurturing the problem while protesting how stressful it is. You don't cope with a headache by inviting people in to take turns whacking you with a hammer.
As an aside, I'd submit that those who immerse themselves in these stories and wallow in them belie by their actions any real desire to cope. In fact, I'd submit that for many, the pointless fretting and agonizing over the misfortune of strangers is a strange form of self-medication. It can serve as substitute for responsible stewardship over their own lives and relationships. They rationalize that, since they "care" so deeply, they're good people. The enormity of a tragedy halfway across the world is effective anesthetic to their own pain and shortcomings--for which they'd be otherwise be accountable in the quiet moments of personal reflection.
Wow, I had no idea I was going to go on like that. You evidently touched a nerve.
