The Media and the Shootings: How the Presentation of Information Determines Public Perception of Tragedy

Elizabeth MebaneStaff WriterColumbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook. These three school names are well-known around the world, but for all the wrong reasons. The schools became infamous with the highest number of murders committed at an educational institution. However, how these shootings are interpreted by the public and written by historians all depends on how the media portrays these tragedies.Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology teacher Charles Thun said many Americans are educated about tragedies through the media and many are deeply affected emotionally.“I think anybody that has a heart feels awful when these tragedies occur,” Thun said.  “It is terrible and horrific for people to have their lives cut short in such a senseless manner. I think all of us (except a small percentage of people that may lack empathy, such as sociopaths) become saddened and somewhat fearful following these tragedies.”Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky wrote his initial, emotional reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting.“As many as 27 dead, 18 of them children,” Tomasky wrote. “Devastating. I can’t possibly imagine what it’s like to be up there. To be a medic, seeing those children’s bodies. To be a teacher or a parent. Good lord.”Tomasky’s detailed reaction was published immediately after news of the Sandy Hook shooting hit the media. In just 37 words, this brief opinion creates emotions of sympathy, shock and terror.According to English 9 HP and AP English Language teacher Maria Stevens, although the media gets the info out, publicizing shootings causes overwhelming fright throughout the nation.“Details on shootings creates fear: fear of unknowns, fear of public spaces, fear of one’s work place,” Stevens said.According to Thun, another reason it is important for media to cover shootings correctly and efficiently is to properly inform the nation of what is happening. However, bearing in mind the traumatized individuals.“I think that the most reputable media sources (such as The New York Times, CBS’ TV show ‘60 minutes,’ and PBS) cover such shootings in a tasteful manner, covering the circumstances of the events and the theoretical causes,” Thun said. “Unfortunately some of the less reputable media sources cover tragedies in a poor manner- misreporting the facts in their haste to be the first to have the news out there and show a lack of respect for the sufferers by shoving a microphone in their faces too readily.”In an article for Real Clear Politics by Carl Cannon, Cannon quoted ABC anchorman George Stephanopoulos, who relayed a journalist’s viewpoint on the media covering shootings.“As journalists we have a duty to tell viewers — and listeners and readers — what happened, when it happened, who did it and, as best we can, why [they] acted as they did,” Stephanopoulos said. “That’s our job. Our job is also to explain it with as much balance and sobriety as possible.”Cannon and Stephanopoulos also discussed the universal source of concern when handling shootings.“Saturation news coverage is known to be a factor that can spark the violent fantasies of society’s unhinged losers and grandiose mental cases,” Cannon wrote. “Most never act on their rage, but for those who do, seeing others with similar grievances immortalized with worldwide, wall-to-wall media coverage is apparently one of the factors that serve to unleash their deadly impulses.”Stevens questions how journalists and news reporters should cover shootings and if there is a universal, correct way to do so.“One might argue that victims, who have so little control over the media, are re-victimized every time their tragedies are aired for all the public to see.” Stevens said. “So, even if a media agency has good intentions, maybe no reporting at all would do us all a service.”In a Guardian article called “How much media gets wrong about mass shootings,” Bob Garfield states his opinion on the matter of how journalists should be covering shootings.“There are a few rules of reporting that the press seems to break every time, no matter how many times we’ve previously been burned,” Garfield said. “News stories with body counts always begin the same way: immense desire for information in a near-vacuum of actual facts. Reporters rush to fill the vacuum, with precious little regard for reliability or context.”Stevens states that the sole purpose of publicizing shootings should be to inform the nation of current events.“The media’s role, of which they are often seemingly unaware or ambivalent, offers the public “news” for news’ sake,” Stevens said. “The nature of their business is to fill in empty space; as such, they publicize any story without a real sense of the impact on their audience. In the attempt to sound unbiased, they sometimes sound ambivalent about shootings, that ambivalence can influence those who have no real opinion on the matter.”In “Robert Ebert Calls Out the Media For Glorifying School Shootings” by Anna Breslaw on jezebel.com, an excerpt of the 2003 review of the Lars Von Trier film “Elephant” (inspired by Columbine) reveals the message that glorifying shootings - specifically shooters - sends out.“The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory,” Von Trier said.There is always much debate over how much personal information of the shooters should be publicized. Thun believes that the media should share this information with the public.“I think it is somewhat necessary to cover the background of the shooters in order to hopefully decrease the likelihood of such incidents in the future,” Thun said. “Perhaps such coverage alerts people to other potential people in society that may be on the verge of psychological dissolution. However, I think the media needs to be very careful about their coverage of such incidents so as to not glorify such acts in any manner. I think that unfortunately is a contributing factor in such tragedies — some of the shooters may be craving some type of notoriety or infamy in a perverse manner, even if posthumously (other contributing factors include mental health problems, the proliferation of guns in American society, and pervasive violence in the media).”Stevens recognizes that society assumes that all shooters are alike, and from hearing about cases of shooters, those individuals may or may not be influenced by the mass murderers.“It would be very difficult to assume that details of one shooter’s intentions unduly will influence another’s,” Stevens said. “In fact, it seems a bit of a fallacy (Faulty Causality), and so, unless we have evidence that one is influenced we cannot assume. On the other hand, we know that individuals do copycat once they believe that a murderer has received infamy for his/her crime. Hence, if we do not sensationalize the crimes, and save the details for the detectives, we do not arm one who is inclined to harm others with more reason to kill.”In many cases, mental illness is deemed the cause of such violent traumas. Thun acknowledges that society then gives mentally ill people an unjust stereotype.“When such tragedies occur, it should also be strongly mentioned that the vast majority of mentally ill people (including schizophrenics and bipolar cases) are not violent,” Thun said. “There is already enough stigma associated with severe mental illnesses. The sufferers of such mental illnesses don’t need the additional burden of people being overly frightened of them.”Thun believes that media should have more respect for the privacy of the victims’ families.“If the families wish to speak to the media about the awful impact such incidents have on their lives, of course they should do so,” Thun said. “However, I think there are times when the media hurriedly shoves a microphone in the faces of people that are in no mood to speak with them. I understand that covering the suffering of the families is necessary so the public can get the full impact of such tragedies, but the well being of the survivors and their families should be foremost priority.”Stevens concludes that there is controversy between whether or not knowing about shootings is necessary for society.“Ultimately, this will always be a chicken and egg argument,” Stevens said. “If the public demands information then it is up to the media agencies to provide, no?  My participation in and your writing of this article is proof. If killers believe they will become famous for their cruel deeds, the public and the media only feed their hunger. Ask yourself, why does the public need to know, what purpose does it satisfy, what goal might hope to be accomplished?  I would argue none, let killers act in their vacuum and poor victims mourn their dead, it is none of our business.”emebane@thesamohi.com