I struggled most of the day Friday with two questions.
One of them appeared on the front page of Saturday’s paper. It was a single word.
Why?
My guess is we’ll never really know what kind of sickness drove a troubled 20-year-old to go on a murderous rampage and for some reason take out his wrath on innocent children.
But there is another question I often wind up asking myself in these instances as well. I often wonder about the non-stop, blanket coverage the media offers such incidents, and if it in any way fuels such incidents or adds to the grief.
I will admit it’s a purely personal, selfish decision. But I think it’s one a lot of people talk about it. I just happen to live it. I make the decisions every day about what this newspaper will cover, and how we will display it, both in print and online.
So I decided to hold something of a conversation with readers. I posted a question on Facebook and asked readers to weigh in. As usual, they were not shy about doing so. I will share their sentiments here. Some are friends, old and new. Some are readers. All made cogent points in light of this tragedy. Please feel free to post a comment on this blog if you’d like to offer your opinion.
One thing I don’t think we can do enough in the wake of this tragedy is talk about it, and what we can do to prevent it from happening again.
Here’s the question I posted: “Now, a purely personal, maybe even selfish question. Does anyone think that the intense coverage of these kinds of mass shootings in any way glorifies them, or worse, may encourage someone else to do the same for their small sliver of fame. In other words, welcome to my world. Want to sit in my seat? Let me know how you would have handled it?”
Pat Biswanger: I worry about that, and also about how people sometimes appear to love wallowing in someone else’s grief. Still, I think you have to cover it, because it is NEWS. It might be best to downplay the name and photo of the killer, so no potential copycat thinks, I’d like that kind of glory too. A trivial example, but it worked with the streakers at the ballgames; once the media stopped showing them, it stopped.
•
Patti Brogan Groshon: I do not like it that the media grabs hold of a tragedy like this and then doesn’t continue to follow through with legislators about changes in policy that can prevent a tragedy like this. It is nonstop coverage for a week or so and then everything gets forgotten about until the next tragedy.
•
Joe DiCioccio: If someone is seriously ill enough to consider and follow through on an act of this tragic magnitude their infamy will come regardless, whether you cover it or not. It is your responsibility to report and inform, the manner in which you do it is always difficult and I for one commend you on your record. You have my trust on this.
•
Elaine D’Arienzo: I made a similar comment this morning. I think gun control is a greater issue.
•
John McBlain: I do not believe that the press coverage glorifies these people. The press needs to cover these stories. We need to know what happened. It helps us. Previous press coverage didn’t cause this monster to do this. Neither did the Second Amendment. Neither did video games. Neither did the fact that God isn’t allowed in schools. When unimaginable tragedies like this happen it is a natural reaction to want to blame something. Society didn’t kill these kids; one sick bastard did. Let’s have a debate after the fact. But can we stop pointing fingers at each other until at least these kids’ and teachers’ souls reach heaven.
•
Ann Marie Cassidy: Yesterday was a horrifying National Tragedy. The situation certainly required coverage, however alot of what was reported yesterday was not accurate information. Even today, the coverage of how these innocent victims were shot is made public. Do reporters really need to report grim details without regard to the families? Do reporters really feel its appropriate to have microphones in the face of a child who survived this horrific attack? In a rush to be the first to identify is it appropriate to name the wrong person? Personally i do feel the intense coverage places ideas in the next unstable person to leave this world with a more horrific travesty than the one before. Information reported upon on the day of..should be the accurate information coming from the law enforcement official selected as the spokesperson. Yesterday was pure evil, not mentally off, loner, whatever...it was evil. He deserves no coverage whatsoever.
•
Rob Farber: We live in a society where a man will snap a picture of someone caught on the tracks in hopes of selling it to a newspaper ( which he did instead of lending his outstretched hand to help)..... Do you really need to ask this question? I think you know what the answer is
•
Chauncey W. Boyd: I will have to comment Phil, I do believe the intense,repetitious, coverage shown over,and over, again enables the sick, evil minded, in this crazy, complex world we live. It allows some to glorify these horrific,barbarian,attacks on our fellow man. There is no other species in life’s cycle including all animals, that attack and kill its own in mass numbers except mankind. Think about this fact, and ask yourself whats wrong here? Yet we have those who insist continuously to remove GOD from our lives and especially at this time of year. The repetitious news coverage also enables those who scream for gun control and alteration to the 2nd amendment to advance their foolish plight. Gun control is NOT the answer, its more like human control. TV and the print allow the copycat type to review and educate themselves as to what did and did not work, or how it may help any other sick minded individual to copy such a horrific, despicable act. GOD help us and GOD be with the families is my prayer! Therefore the correct answer is YES!
•
Nancy Cawley Lane: I think the coverage is necessary. I want to know as much as possible and then figure out how to prevent in the future. I also want to know about the victims - the school principal and the brave teachers/staff. And of course the kids. We can honor their lives with our news coverage.
•
Gail Pontuto: The simple answer is, “NO,”
•
Mike Minnick: I think the problem with the non stop coverage is when the wrong info gets out. The “unnamed source” at the police dept gave the wrong name, causing this poor man who just lost his mother and brother to defend himself to people who took to his page to call him names, rather then mourn his loss. But I also understand the need for you to get the information out as soon as you get it. In todays world everything is now now now! As a society we should be able to handle a delay of a little while so information can be correct. And the interviewing of children is disgusting. These poor children just went through the worst trauma they will probably ever experience in their lives, most probably dont even comprehend that their friends are gone, but reporters are pushing microphones in their face. And the parents that let this happen are equally disgusting to me. Take your child home, talk to them, hug them, love them. Keep them away as much as you can, because reality is about to hit them like a freight train
•
Mike Minnick: All that being said, I do not envy your job. You will spend the next several days deciding what to print and what not to print. Will you have the interviews with the children? Will you show the funerals? These are not decisions I would want to make.
•
Cyndi Charney: Phil - I just had this “conversation” with my sister and niece. I do believe that publicity of these tragic events influences other mentally ill individuals to perform similar acts. These people know, before they die, that their name and their tragedy will be highly publicized and discussed in print, TV, social media, etc. It becomes a “last hurrah”. Do I think that the Daily Times not printing anything about Sandy Hook would make a difference? No. I do think the media has a responsibility to publish news like this, but the hours upon hours of tv coverage, front page news stories, etc. absolutely encourages these senseless acts. IMO this is a tri-fold problem - too much media coverage, access to assault weapons (although it wouldn’t have made a difference in this case), and inadequate attention and care of the mentally ill.
•
Pamela Vines Golden: It certainly doesn’t help. My husband is watching CNN and it’s constant coverage. I honestly don’t think that level of communication is good for anyone, but less those folks who are inclined to commit such a horrible act. There has to be a happy medium.
21 hours ago • Like
•
Patty Franchi: It’s news, and has to be reported. That being said, I think the newspapers, through a careful choice of words and by sticking to the facts, can report these things in a more dignified and less sensationalized manner than TV. For instance, yesterday our local news channel reporter was breathlessly touting “almost 30 people dead!”. Why say almost 30 - if not to make it sound even worse? Just tell the news and don’t encourage the crazy people.
•
William D Pugh: I wish there were equal or greater coverage of the parents and loved ones of the victims, so people can see and feel the pain and horror. Might make a prospective killer think twice about what he/she is about to do.
•
Doreen McGettigan: I’m not sure if it encourages copy cats or not. I think it is a fine line between enough coverage and too much. We want to know but a lot of times the facts are muddled at first. I think facts should be checked before reporting. News organizations should worry more about being right instead of being first. I really dislike talk of gun control immediately after every tragedy in this country. I wish the conversation would revolve around controlling crazy people. Our mental Health system in this country is in desperate need of immediate overhaul.
•
Michael Kellar: It’s news, should be reported. Just don’t ask 6-8 year old survivors for comment, and make sure you let other MSM know such a practice is slimy.
•
Steve Buttry: Phil, I blogged about this topic, suggesting that we cover the crime but not name mass murderers, who clearly are seeking attention: http://wp.me/poqp6-2Jv
News orgs should deny mass killers the attention they crave
stevebuttry.wordpress.com
What if we denied mass killers the attention they crave? I’ve covered too many m...See More
•
Matt Silva: I heard David Brooks say that on NPR yesterday that the media should never mention the name of the shooter, but that would only work if every media outlet did it. Fat chance of that happening, but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.
•
Katherine Miller: The facts but not the incessant repetition of details. And no interviewing kids,
•
Denise Wusinich: Anyone in their right mind would not want this kind of fame. We need to stop being a
Society that is more worried about being politically correct and more worried about addressing issues such as mental illness and easy access to guns. Anyone can buy a gun more easily than an antihistamine .. We need to read all we can to understand why and try to come up with a solution. Maybe someone reading about it or seeing a report will acknowledge someone they know who potentially could do harm to others
•
Joan Scanlon: I am so horrified by this. I think it’s important to cover this story. I know I have watched it unfold and read the Daily Times. I think it’s more important to focus on the victims which includes first responders and others in the community and not give the perpetrator any more than a basic listing of his name.
Comments