Firstly, I think it goes without saying that everyone on the Porch sends their prayers and well-wishes to the families of those affected by Monday's tragedy in Blacksburg, Va., as well as the entire community of Virginia Tech University.
I'm sure we have already discussed several aspects of this incident with friends, family, co-workers, as has just about everyone else in the country. My question for the porchmates tonight: How do you think the media did?
In particular, today we saw a blacklash from TV viewers and newspaper readers angry over the media's decision to broadcast video and pictures from Cho Seung-Hui's multimedia manifesto, which was mailed to NBC in the two hours between the shooting incidents.
Was it wrong to broadcast the material or print it in the papers?
One compelling argument for "no" comes from Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, who says "Journalists do not have the right to hide material that is so clearly essential to a full understanding of a major public issue."
On the flip side, an equally compelling argument was delivered by Virginia State Police Col. Steve Flaherty, who told the Associated Press that he was disappointed with what the network showed.
"I just hate that a lot of people not used to seeing that type of image had to see it," he told AP.
What do you think? For newspapers, it was not an easy decision. Take a look at how papers across the country handled a delicate situation. NOTE: This link updates daily, so it may be different after midnight Eastern Time.
Consider: Each of Texas' five "major dailies" -- Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio -- elected to use the photos on their front pages.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First and foremost, as you stated, our prayers and good wishes go to those families and friends of the victims. Not enough can be said to console or comfort them in this time of tragedy and loss.
At hand, though, the media coverage and their handling of the information. I agree completely that it has been a difficult challenge juggling public interest versus dissent, and weighing the options in presenting the incident coverage.
It is not unprecedented in modern media coverage as many of these same questions were asked after they 9/11 events occurred and everyone had to deal with the video coverage available.
Here is how I see it. The media has done a great job and responded to their readers/viewers/listeners as necessary. It is their responsibility to present as much information as is available, while at the same time responding to the particular needs of their audience.
Every outlet as a different audience base, and our presented with difficult challenges. I do not think that the print media has been mistaken in printing images or explaining more graphic detail. While the impact is no less great, or images less disturbing, the print media audience is usually more educated and well able to handle the realities of these situations. The same goes for discussion on news radio.
Television is more challenging, I think, because video footage, in this reality tv age, has almost a cable sitcom effect on the audience. When the real world is shown in tv, along with the harsh realities, some viewers find a detached entertainment value in it, while others register the separation between reality and entertainment, and express disdain.
So Fox won't show it anymore, and others will limit usage. As long as they are still reporting the information, I think it is acceptable to present it in a format and level of detail requested by their audience.
Again, I think print and radio are doing just fine. It is a tragedy and while many don't like to think about it, history often only repeats itself when it is forgotten.
Post a Comment