Do you believe news coverage has become voyeuristic?
People have a morbid curiosity, they turned up and watched Christians being eaten by lions, witches being burned at the stake, at public hangings throwing rotten fruit, they sat at the guillotine and knitted.If we happen to see an accident, most of us, whether we admit it or not, have a look. Why? Because it could happen to us. What is more natural to have a quick look at something that terrifies us?

When I think back to how new was first passed around, I think of the old Town Cryer I used to see in Movies. He would ring a bell to get everyone's attention, and then read out the important issues he had come to deliver. I don't know if he told jokes to keep peoples attention or keep them amused, he probably didn't, but these days news is, like a lot of other things cast into the role of Entertainment.

Media have a few requirements to sell their newspapers in a competitive visual market. Events have to be immediate, they have to catch our attention.  Events that happen around "Celebrity" will interest those who follow them. We read news to find information, shore up our prejudices, to satisfy our morbid curiosity.and for entertainment .  Is this voyeurism?

The term seems to have moved from being just sexual interest to viewing intimate events in the lives of people we don't know. If this is the case, then yes the media has become voyeuristic, but I think that it is following a human element that has been alive and well in the human psyche .