BlogHer - Covering tragedy: Emerging lessons from the Virginia Tech Killings - Comments

It tells me not to assume

Sara Gunderson — Mon, 21 May 2007 03:42:07 -0500

It tells me not to assume that this was a "typical" school shooting, if there actually is such a thing. I make fewer assumptions ahead of revealed facts, because the shooter was different from the norm.

What does it mean for race to be relevant?

Kim Pearson — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:53:48 -0500

Hi Sara,

What I generally tell students (and what I think the AAJA meant) is that information describing suspects should be meaningful. What, after all, does an "Asian male" look like? "Asians" come in a variety of skin tones, facial shapes, heights, body shapes and hair styles. What's more helpful is a descriptions that fill in some of those types of details. Thomas Huang has a thoughtful commentary on this subject, that argues, in part:

"The danger of racial identifiers, and racial stereotypes, is that they provide us with shortcuts to telling stories that turn out to be wrong. Ultimately, there's very little of the killer's story that we will ever understand."

Your statement that "most people would have assumed he was white" interests me. You ask, "Is this any better?" I suppose I would ask, What have you learned from knowing that he was Asian? How would that have been different from whatever default assumption you or someone else might have made?

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

A Question

Sara Gunderson — Fri, 04 May 2007 04:26:45 -0500

8. Be thoughtful about stereotypes.
When the initial reporting identified the suspect as an "Asian male," the Asian American Journalists Association felt compelled to remind journalists of the rule that race should only be included in a news story when it is clearly relevant:

The problem I have with this is when, if the race is not included, readers and viewers will make certain assumptions about race. If the race of the VT shooter had not been mentioned, most people would have assumed he was white. Is this any better?

Thank you so much!

ecogrrl — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:47:01 -0500

This was a great piece; as a former student journalist and an avid news reader, I'm grateful to read your perspective. I think your tenth point ("Above all, this is a story about people") is perhaps beginning to resonate with the media again - but the last few days, I've had to keep the television off in order to stay sane.

I wish I'd had journalism classes from someone like you when I was in college. Thanks again.

The Cho family speaks

Kim Pearson — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:18:54 -0500

In a statement released through their attorney, the family of Seung-Hui Cho apologized for for Cho's "unspeakable actions," adding that "it is a terrible tragedy for all of us." They said that they "never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence." The family is at an undisclosed location under law enforcement protection, according to the article.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

NBC seems to be about ratings, not public trust with this

Nordette — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:38:37 -0500

NBC gave an explanation in a way that seemed to say we're only going to show you this part, but you should see all the rest of the stuff we have that we're not going to show you. Maybe we'll show you that later.

Craig Scott, whose sister was killed during the Columbine shootings, had this to say on an Oprah show that was taped before the manifesto hit airwaves.

"It's really easy to look back and see that â€¦ the warning signs, and you can study all the things that the shooter left behind and you can try to say, 'Why didn't we see this coming?'" Craig says. "The big concern that I have is the attention and focus that's put on the shooter. [Reports say], 'It's the most bloody, the biggest, the recordâ€¦' and records can be broken. And I have found students that actually idolize the two shooters at Columbine."

Instead, Craig urges everyone to focus on the positive. "Where you choose to focus immediately is very important. What you're going to choose to spend your time thinking about," he says. "We've focused on my sister, Rachel, who's so compassionate and kind. And from that, that's the opposite of that anger and hatred." (Oprah show)

I saw the show in its second airing and he also said the killers at Columbine wanted attention and would've wanted us to plaster their words and pictures all over the place. I think he's right. Ironically these killers get lots of attention and I wonder how that feeds into a copycat's madness. The VT killer referenced the Columbine shooters. He seemed to think they were heroes.

The VT shooter sent out a video and manifesto to a major network and that tells us that he wanted attention, and the media is giving it to him because sensationalism gets ratings. I know the confession video is getting ratings points because my personal blog has the word "confessions" in the name. I've talked about the shootings and so when people search for "VT shooter confession," which means they're looking for his video, many end up on my blog.

I didn't even bother to check NBC until I started getting those hits. The video was everywhere else, at least the part they sent to other media outlets. And the only reason I checked them finally was to see how they handled receiving the package.

Looking at their broadcast online, I see that NBC tried to justify showing the video. They gave out warnings about its contents. I suppose they think if you don't want to see it then don't watch. In many ways they sound like they're explaining why they didn't release the video sooner and show it sooner.

I think they could have waited until after the funerals, but even then I don't know what the videos tell us anything we didn't already know, which is the man was mentally ill. An analysis of what he said would've been fine.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Great Common Sense Guide to Copyright

white trash mom — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:42:59 -0500

Thanks for the great common sense explanation. I am going to link to it as I think it's worth sharing.

Quality Journalism for the Coming Generations

Creatively Belle — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:32:19 -0500

Kim, I am so impressed by your 'lecture notes' and thankful that a new generation of budding journalists will learn from you.

I wish the current editors and journos would take a moment to sit back to consider their values, aims and motives. Some of the coverage has been dreadful and to think of those involved and their families and friends being confronted by it is really upsetting.

I heard about the release of these photos and rantings of Cho and will simply avoid the news so I have as little exposure to them as possible because their publication is him winning and I will not choose to be part of that. I didn't read the comment with the picture of him in it because I wanted to scroll away from it as fast as possible.

One of the old Roman ways of punishing a person who had committed horrible crimes was to erase their image and name from all recorded history, to make them a non-entity because they understood the power of an image. Maybe we need to relearn this lesson.

I wish you and your colleagues all the very best in skilling up the future generations of journalists with the ability to think and make choices about ethics and quality of work.

Kind regards,
Belinda

NBC Branding

Maria Niles — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:27:20 -0500

In addition to the galling use of the tragedy to create slick promos for each network, NBC apparently made a copy of the tape before "immediately" turning it over to authorities and to every other network. Plus, as if advertising and promoing the tape were not enough, NBC felt the need to brand the video with their logo.

Perhaps I should be glad that NBC has made it abundantly clear what their brand of "journalism" stands for so that I do my best to avoid it.

Fair use standards

Lisa Stone — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:25:25 -0500

Carmen, I'm so glad you mentioned this -- Sepia Mutiny is a terrific community and they have been badly represented by this quote being taken out of context. I just commented over there in support of Anna and the other editors.

To your question, no, I don't know of any official standards for quoting anyone, blogs included. The classic journalism standard is to quote someone fairly and in context, which sure didn't happen here.

But I actually think we can apply the same fair use standards I used earlier this week when replying to Terri's question: "What's the proper way to quote without copyright infringement?

I quote lots of legal sites and experts about copyright infringement, but then I get to the meat of it:

Unfortunately, I find that most fair use guides are so qualified and filled with legalese that they're hard to apply to real life without a law degree. And I don't have one. So here's how I interpret these, no matter which medium I'm writing for:
# I only quote a representative snippet of the original item.
# I put the snippet in quotes
# I name the source
# I link the source

In other words, I try to put myself in the shoes of the original creator of the text, audio, video, image, etc., and ask myself: Am I sampling enough of this work to provide a clear example to my reader without stealing from (SUBSTITUTE "BEING UNFAIR OR UNREPRESENTATIVE OF") the original creator?

My answer to this question changes depending upon the subject I'm trying to invoke.

Does that cover it? What am I leaving out? Would love your thoughts.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Squint and Cho looks a lot like Anna Nicole Smith

Lisa Stone — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:16:54 -0500

For heaven's sake. NBC and other networks are playing this clip like a movie trailer. I just tuned in to NPR and found this photograph of bar patrons in Blacksburg, Va., where the original shooting took place, watching this thing on the big screen:

Source: http://npr.org

I'm with Maria Niles - I cannot turn on the tube (or YouTube) for fear that I'm part of the problem, providing ratings to networks who would exploit this story.

This is an utterly irresponsible use of the airwaves. If you squint, Cho starts looking a lot like the most recent over-the-top tabloid story heroine: Anna Nicole Smith.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

NBC's publication and broadcast of Cho's "manifesto"

Kim Pearson — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 23:31:24 -0500

I had planned to spend some time tonight responding to Carmen's question in the comments above, and I wanted to respond to the wise and compassionate posts from Nordette and Dorothy.

But then the multimedia manifesto of Cho Seung Hui hit the Net while I was teaching the class that this blog post was originally written for. (These were my lecture notes, in a way.) I do not understand.

Why is Cho's two-gun self-portrait glowering at us in a three-column banner, not just from MSNBC, but at other news sites and major blogs such as Huffington Post? The rationale presented by people who approve of the posting of this material in this article is that the material is newsworthy, and restricting its dissemination is a disservice to the public.

"If a tape or letter is newsworthy, then the public ought to be exposed to it, even if there is the downside of giving bad guys some publicity," said Jerry Ceppos, formerly executive editor of the San Jose Mercury News and now a fellow in media ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University."

In the same article, another noted figure in the field of journalism ethics, Theodore Glasser, stated my own view:

"This is the kind of thing better described than shown ... so that it doesn't become sensationalized, which it is now."

What galls me more than anything is that I can't find any explanation on any of these news websites for why they chose to display this content, and why these images were playsd so large. NBC anchor Brian Williams, whose work I so admired, offers no explanation on his blog, and no reponse to the dozens of anguished comments from viewers.

I think of how carefully the New York Times and Washington Post deliberated in 1995 about publishing the Unabomber's manifesto. That was a rambling 35,000-word tome from the shadowy figure who had pulled off several deadly bombings over the course of several years. In April 1995, he offered to stop if his words were published; if not, the violence would go on. The newspapers presented a carefully-crafted joint statement explaining why they decided to publish it. It read, in part:

"From the beginning, the two newspapers have consulted closely on the issue of whether to publish under the threat of violence. We have also consulted law enforcement officials. Both the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have now recommended that we print this document for public safety reasons, and we have agreed to do so."

There you go. A clear explanation, an ethically defensible rationale. Having made the decision to subject viewers and readers to this material, doesn't NBC and the news organizations who piggybacked on them at least owe us an explanation?

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

kudos!

prettylady — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:57:18 -0500

Great job, Professor Pearson, as all this feedback shows. Hope the class discussion went well today.

Initial thoughts

Kim Pearson — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:51:03 -0500

After a quick read of the story and the blog, I think there is reason for concern that the quote from the commenter was used out of context. Before I elaborate, though, I want to try to contact the editor and/or writer to better understand their intent.

On a break during class now. Will write more later. Just wanted to let you know I am thinking about your question.

BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|Contributing Writer, Online Journalism Review

This is great stuff, Kim

Nordette — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:20:25 -0500

Actually, I read this last night, but I was exhausted after covering a local election and didn't have energy to say anything. I was exhausted and bleary-eyed but I knew I was reading great stuff. :-)

It's so provocative and informative that I original started commenting at 3:30 today, I think, and ended up with what I realized needed to be a blog post of my own. So, I left for a while and finished writing it.

One more time, your post is outstanding. It should be required reading for us who want to cover news.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Covering tragedy: Emerging lessons from the Virginia Tech Killings

Kim Pearson — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:22:52 -0500

In my day job, I'm a journalism educator. When a horrific event such as Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech occurs, I'm looking for the lessons I can share with my students, and ways to make sure that I am modeling good professional practice for them.

With that in mind, I've been scouring the web and talking to colleagues about how this story should be covered, pitfalls to avoid, and lessons for the future. Here are some issues, advice, and story angles that I've come across so far:

1. Citizen journalists need to know basic safety rules for covering a dangerous story. As Mac Slocum notes in this discussion board post from the Online Journalism Review, the student who shot the camera phone video that's been playing on CNN and elsewhere ad infinitum ran toward the police, rather than taking cover. As the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma warns,

"Like police, firefighters, paramedics and others, journalists often arrive on the scene minutes after disaster strikes. Like other first responders, journalists should be mindful of their own safety."

2. Watch the headlines. This one comes from one of my students. She says she's been getting her news about the tragedy from Va Tech student newspaper website because the writing is "more sensitive, less sensational," adding:

I mean, just look at their title: "Heartache: 32 Fallen." Big difference from "Carnage on Campus," which I saw on The Trenton Times. That was disturbing -- when I hear carnage, I think of animals, not college students.

3. Be careful about the "myths" that can become part of the narrative in a story like this one. Dave Cullen, a Dart Center Fellow, covered the 1999 Columbine shootings, and found that "nearly everything we know about it is wrong."

According to Cullen, such widely-reported items that the shooters at Columbine were outcasts, that there was a shadowy "Trenchcoat Mafia," and that they were "targeting jocks," have more to do with reporters' preconceptions than with the facts. In fact, Cullen reported in this 2004 story on the fifth anniversary of that tragedy, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were acting out their deep psychiatric problems.

And then Cullen added this point, which really got me thinking:

An authoritative joint report by the Secret Service and Dept. of Education on school shooters found "there is no accurate or useful 'profile' of attackers." Yet the media will construct a profile this week anyway, and try to fit this attacker to it. We should resist, but also understand that there are some key characteristics, and there are several different profiles.

That had me wondering about the right way to use this widely-referenced study conducted by the New York Times in 2000. My concern is that journalists might take the fragmentary information that has been emerging about Cho Seung-Hui, the man identified as the shooter at Virginia Tech, pick out the details that match the NY Times study, and produce a pat analysis of Cho and his motives.

4.Be careful about the experts you choose to interview. The Dart Center Fellows raised this issue, but I had been thinking about it already, especially when I saw anti-videogame activist Jack Thompson bloviating on television about how the killer probably played a lot of Grand Theft Auto. The killer hadn't even been identified, so clearly Thompson was pushing his agenda. CNet published a condemnation and refutation of Thompson's remarks, but the real question is whether he was a legitimate source on the story in the first place. That brings up a corollary, below.

5.Try to stay independent of others' political, and personal agendas. Bernie at PopPolitics worries that the Jack Thompsons in this story will sway the debate away from the issue of guns in favor of scapegoating popular culture. After citing research that found that the news coverage of Columbine over-covered the games Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris played and under-covered how they got the arsenal they used to kill:

I certainly believe that popular culture has the power to influence both ideas and behavior. That's one way to express the premise of PopPolitics, in fact. But the use of popular culture in relationship to incidents of gun violence always seems like a distraction to me.

6. Campus safety issues have their own complexity Nearly every aspect of this story has a different twist because it happened on a college campus.

Take, for example, the debate over gun laws that has been rekindled by Monday's events, as BlogHer CE Melinda Casino noted. Andrew Cohen at Katie & Co. has a point when he we ought to defer the political arguments at least until the initial shock and grief has subsided, and the Virginia Tech community has had a chance to bury its dead and tend to its wounded.

But when that debate resumes, keep in mind that the issue of guns on campus has its own particular nuances, as Cohen points out:

If nothing else, let us hope that the tragedy at Virginia Tech at least fosters a new national conversation about guns on campus. That conversation ought to begin not in Virginia but in Utah, where last fall the Supreme Court of Utah rejected an attempt by administrators at the University of Utah to ban guns on its campus. The rationale behind that ruling and the potential scope of it are worth reviewing now, if not by Congress than by state legislators around the country.

As information emerges about the shooter's apparent mental health problems, one frequent detail mentioned is that at least one professor tried to get Cho to seek counseling, but was told that under federal privacy laws there was nothing that could be done to compel him to get help. Ironically, the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription req.) ran an article in Monday's edition noting that Virginia recently passed a law prohibiting schools from expelling students who try to commit suicide, adding:

The scope of the campus mental-health crisis is staggering. On the American College Health Association's National College Health Assessment from spring 2006, covering nearly 95,000 students on 117 campuses, 16 percent of the students reported that on at least five occasions during the preceding academic year, they had "felt so depressed it was difficult to function." More than 9 percent had seriously considered suicide, and one in every 100 had attempted suicide in the previous year.

Finally, familiarize yourself with the Clery Act -- the law that sets the rules that schools have to follow when it comes to disclosing information about campus crime.

7. Watch out for the rumor patrol Joy Reid says the conspiracy theories are already circulating. Check out Snopes.com or other Urban Legends sites before passing along rumors. We've already seen how quickly speculation and rumor becomes news: remember those initial reports that the shooter was a Chinese graduate student? Don't be surprise if other "facts" from the early reporting in this story also turn out to be wrong.

8. Be thoughtful about stereotypes. When the initial reporting identified the suspect as an "Asian male," the Asian American Journalists Association felt compelled to remind journalists of the rule that race should only be included in a news story when it is clearly relevant:

There is no evidence at this early point that the race or ethnicity of the suspected gunman has anything to do with the incident, and to include such mention serves only to unfairly portray an entire people.

AAJA took some criticism for its stance, most notably from a former member who accused the group of trying to force the press to "ignore the identity of the shooter" -- a charge that AAJA's president rebutted.

9. Take care of yourself. When 9-11 happened, my students and I worked for more than 12 hours straight running a makeshift news operation that carried local coverage of our campus and community, which is in commuting distance of Ground Zero. I deliberately avoided TV news for the next two weeks, getting all of my information from email and websites. I knew that I could better handle the information in text form than with images and sound added.

Pay attention to your emotional response. It's okay to turn off the television. The Dart Center advises:

â€¢ If you witnessed a traumatic scene, find a way to relax within a day or two. If you have a favorite stress-reduction technique (exercise, yoga, art, etc), do it.

â€¢ It's common to experience emotional distress in the weeks after witnessing a traumatic event. If the distress doesn't subside over time, however, you ought to consider seeking professional help.

10. Above all, remember that this is a story about people. Be humane when interviewing victims and families. Give people space. Don't ask traumatized people to assign blame -- save that analysis for the experts when there is evidence to examine. And keep in mind that the aftershocks of an event like Monday's run deep and wide.

From Nancy at In This Moment, a personal connection:

I learned this afternoon that one of the people killed in the Virginia Tech massacre was the son of a friend of mine.

The knowledge left me stunned and horrified, because now I don't just picture some abstract person when I think of the families and friends of those who died -- I picture my friend and his wife. I can put a face on suffering, and it chills me....

For Ann at Feminist Law Professors, an old wound reopened:

There was an on campus shooting at my university while I was a student....

As for me, for few hours on Monday, I was a frightened 9-year-old again, glued to my television as Charles Whitman picked off hi s victims from a tower at the University of Texas.

Whatever the reactions, and whoever we are, it is the human response that must be remembered, protected and honored. As with physicians, the cardinal rule for journalists and bloggers covering a tragedy of this dimension should be, "First, do no harm."