Cara Renfro
cr322818@ohio.edu
In the midst of tragedy, it is often difficult to understand and communicate. If a friend experiences loss, what do you say? What is the right thing to say? The stakeholders of this conversation are of a lower scale compared to the conversation between the media and the public.
The media can not afford to say the wrong thing when reporting crimes, such as mass shootings. The reach of the media is wide, which is important as information should be easily attainable. As a result of this, however, information must be correct and necessary. When on platforms such as social media, news organizations have to be especially thoughtful of the stories published as those stories can be further developed by the public.
For example Emily Richmond states in the article, It's time to rethink coverage of mass shootings, the thoughts of Kelly McBride surrounding the topic of incomplete information. She states, "A blackout on the shooter's name by responsible media will only drive people to the darker corners of the internet looking for more-and often faulty- information..."(2019).
While fulfilling the duty of journalists to report the truth of mass shootings and other fatal crimes, it begs the question if the main focus of the story should be the truth regarding what happened or who it happened to.
 |
| Picture source: Poynter |
What vs Who
Emotional stories do not always need to initially be told as so. In an event of a mass shooting, it is important for journalists to report the facts and omit unnecessary information.
Focusing on other aspects of the story can lead to stereotypes or an act of similar behavior. It also can be easier for those involved to not have a loved one be the face of such a story.
It can not be ignored, however, that focusing on who the story involves is a piece of information that matters. It can lead to new information and be a way to honor those who were lost.
Although time sensitivity is a factor in journalism, especially in the age of social media, journalists must take the time to handle such a story with consideration.
Balance
In the article entitled, crime coverage now requires constantly 'feeding the beast', David J. Krajicek and Debora Wenger restate a comment from Lowe of Santa Barbara. The comment being, "I think there will always be interest in crime, but the pressure is going to be to give it context" (2013).
In reporting a fatal crime story, an angle and balance must be determined. A story does not change, but how a reporter tells the story matters. How a reporter tells the story is personal.
Mass shootings are especially difficult to report on, due to the fact that it is such an emotionally charged event that personally affects so many people in the community and beyond. However, it is important to inform people, as that is a journalists' job, giving people the information available, because as you said, they will go searching for omitted information, like the name of the shooter if it's not included. There are so many factors to think about when writing about something as fragile as a school shooting, but at the end of the day as journalists it is our job to get the correct information out to the masses, and in a timely manner. I think before writing about such an event it would be good to try and view the article from different perspectives, and try to be as sensitive and professional as possible, while still including the pertinent information. I agree with your point on only using relevant information. So many publications will try to delve deep into the shooter and their past life and activities, and it can most definitely create stereotypes. We are not trying to persuade people, but inform them, and we have to ask if it is really necessary to add extra information in just because it's juicy or might get more readers, if it is not necessary to the facts at hand.
ReplyDeleteSometimes we have to leave out small details that could compromise the subject of the story. We always want to remain unbiased and treat our subjects with respect.
ReplyDelete