As millions sat captivated in front of their television sets and watched the tragic events of September 11th unfold in real time, television industry executives grappled with their own personal dilemma: What should we show, and how much do we show? In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the general consensus is that the networks did a commendable, if not admirable, job in their coverage of the attacks. Wisely, network executives voted to preempt regular programming and run non-stop, live coverage for four days - a decision that cost millions in advertising losses and additional revenues. Still, many critics point to the recent coverage as yet another example of a trend that is becoming increasingly prevalent in local and national broadcasts. "Fright TV," as it is facetiously called, is the movement by some news organizations to purposely promote and include in their broadcasts images that create public hysteria or paranoia. The idea is to shock audiences into submission: Once the viewing public sees a particularly gruesome or startling image, natural curiosity draws them helplessly into the broadcast, their bewilderment fueled by the spectacle of shocking images blaring from their TV sets. As the images become progressively more shocking (and they must, in order to maintain viewer interest) the audience is pushed further and further into the content of the broadcast, whether the item of coverage is a burglary, murder, or the destruction of Manhattan's two tallest buildings.

Critics cite this type of coverage as unethical and a public hazard. They maintain that the proponents of "Fright TV" are eroding the public's trust of news organizations with hyped-up and sensationalized stories designed to boost ratings - which, in turn, drive up advertising rates and increase station revenues. Network executives, they believe, place greater concern on the profitability of a story, and not its inherent value as a news item. The question now asked in newsrooms is, "Will this sell?" While this new trend in broadcast news is certainly unsettling, it gives rise to a deeper ethical question: Can we trust TV news?

Network executives would argue that they are merely doing their job. The beneficiaries of an age that has witnessed remarkable leaps in technology, TV bosses now have at their disposal the most up-to-date means of communication, from hidden cameras to satellite feeds. The result? The expansion of live coverage, especially those stories that are image-oriented. Visual images make a story more compelling, as viewers are more likely to absorb its significance with the aid of a picture. The startling images condemned by critics as "scare tactics" are really integral pieces of a compelling tale. While many would argue that news outlets have blurred the lines between news and entertainment, industry executives retort that it is the viewing public, not the networks, that have a fascination with sensational stories and pictures. News outlets are responsive to the demands of their audience. If the audience gravitates to shocking and bizarre stories, the networks will continue to promote them.

To ask if TV news is "still trustworthy" implies that the institution of TV news has somehow lost credibility in the eyes of the public, to the extent that they are no longer a reliable source for news. A better question is whether the media has lost favor in the eyes of the viewing public. The answer to this question is an emphatic "yes." By and large, the media (especially TV news personalities) are despised, but not because they are unreliable or untrustworthy. The camera is a window into someone else's life, and many people take issue with the intrusiveness of TV news - how one person's privacy is stripped from them and blared live across a stranger's TV set. This, of course, has nothing to do with the reliability of TV news groups. They remain steadfastly committed to providing complete coverage of a story, even if the images they must show are shocking or fright-filled. It is an industry that thrives on visual contact. If you find the images too revolting to handle, there's a mple solution. Turn off the TV.