Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2023 July 1

= July 1 =

Selectivity of trigger warnings
I'm intrigued by the increasing prevalence of trigger warnings on television news reports. Certainly in Australia, but I can't speak for elsewhere. It seems that at least 3 times a week I see these things now (and I'm not a huge TV watcher, but I do like to keep abreast of current events).

I don't quibble with any of the individual warnings, but I'm left wondering why Story A qualifies for one while Story B, which contains equally graphic and potentially upsetting content, does not. Just about every day there are reports of yet another "horror" road smash or mass shooting or natural disaster with massive fatalities - all of these are bound to trigger some people but they escape the trigger warnings. Many political developments here and elsewhere should qualify. (Hell, even a single mention of Donald Trump, or Harry and Meghan's latest doings, or the latest "celebrity wedding of the century" sends me insane, but I'm not catered for. Reports of Paris Hilton's and Lindsay Lohan's flirtations with the law used to do it for me. Whenever I hear that someone has "taken the world by storm", I throw up my lunch.)

OK, I'm getting whimsical now but my core question remains: what sorts of issues qualify for trigger warnings, and why only them?--  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Totally off the cuff: are trigger warnings provided mainly/solely for stories dealing with protected characteristics, to protect the broadcaster in case someone with such a characteristic takes offence from the coverage? -- Verbarson talkedits 18:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This study presents a break-down into 14 categories (see Table 1). --Lambiam 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems very comprehensive. Thanks. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)