In the past, the placement of a news story – decided by a particular editor – mattered greatly, as it determined what the public would confront and discuss. Editorial choices were made according to the timing, context, and public value of the news. Today, this role has increasingly been handed over to algorithms. News content is now shaped less by a journalist’s conscience or judgement and more by its likelihood of generating clicks, watch time, and emotional “trigger” potential.

This transformation determines not only what becomes visible but also what remains entirely invisible. News about femicides, migrant deaths, or environmental disasters often fails to pass through the editorial filter – either because algorithms deem them uninteresting or because they are considered to “dampen the audience’s mood.” Meanwhile, the system, more interested in manipulating our emotions than holding our attention, allows gossip, disinformation, and outrage-laden content to spread rapidly.

Visuals without connection

In the digital era, visual representations of disasters have multiplied, yet their human dimensions have faded. Wars, migrations, and murders are broadcast on the news, but without forging an emotional connection with the viewer. What is consumed is often not the event itself but its aestheticised representation.

Media narratives increasingly “show without engaging,” imitating emotion rather than fostering it. As Lillie Chouliaraki observes, the media is drifting away from the moral sensitivity that could instil a sense of responsibility in its audiences. Similarly, Susan Sontag, in Regarding the Pain of Others, warns that tragedies are turning into aesthetic objects, exposing audiences not to reality itself but to its stylised version.

When considered alongside Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulation, this shift suggests that the media no longer represents reality but produces an illusion of it.

Pain reduced to numbers

In femicide reporting, extensive details are often given about the perpetrator, while the name and life story of the woman killed are buried between the lines. Deaths on migrant boats are reduced to numbers – names, faces, and lives are erased. Their stories are “heavy,” requiring time to process and understand. Yet the digital content economy demands speed and instant consumption.

The issue lies not only in content but in the structural organisation of the media. View counts, likes, and shares do not reflect the quality of a piece but how well it fits algorithmic preferences. The result is content that captures attention without causing discomfort, that does not sadden the viewer yet still avoids forging an emotional bond, a simulation of engagement.

In this process, emotions become marketable commodities, and the sense of responsibility erodes.

Erosion of emotion

This media order generates not only individual fatigue but also erodes collective bonds. Continuous exposure to suffering without genuine connection dulls sensitivity. We witness events but fail to internalise them. The demand for change gives way to passive spectatorship, because pain that is not felt does not transform, it merely passes by.

The representation of women, migrants, and other vulnerable groups is particularly critical here. Without visibility in the media, their ability to claim a voice in the public sphere diminishes. Political awareness cannot develop without emotional engagement.

Editors or algorithms

Visibility today is determined not only by the content itself but by the systems that select it. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X claim to offer “personalised” content. In reality, this personalisation merely ranks content according to its potential for engagement.

Truthfulness is no longer paramount, what matters is how much anger, interest, or curiosity a piece can provoke. Some media content is amplified by algorithms, while the visibility of dissenting sources is reduced.

For example, during local elections or anti-refugee protests, social media algorithms have promoted unverified but highly engaging content, fuelling disinformation. By redistributing visibility, algorithms fragment the Habermasian ideal of the “public sphere.” In this environment, echo chambers grow, common ground shrinks, and, following José van Dijck’s observation, journalism is increasingly replaced by “data production.” Journalists write not for the reader but for the algorithm.

In this context, what algorithms hide is as important as what they show. Whether a femicide or a bombing in Gaza becomes visible can depend on platform coding or direct political intervention.

A new frontier for critique

Today, journalistic ethics rests not only in the hands of reporters but also in those of software developers and platform engineers. The scope of media criticism must therefore expand: not only who writes the news but also who makes it visible must be questioned. Unless the workings and priorities of algorithms are made transparent, these systems – what the public discusses – will remain beyond democratic oversight.

One of the most urgent questions in contemporary media criticism is this: if visibility is controlled by a select few, do they also control the truth? Algorithmic journalism is not merely a technological shift – it marks ethical, political, and epistemological ruptures. We must debate not only the content of the media but also the regimes of visibility. For the issue at stake today is not just what is said, but what is never said at all.

Dr. Yasemin Giritli İnceoğlu is a visiting professor at the Media and Communications Department, London School of Economics.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.