The tragic events at Virginia Tech earlier this week will take their own place in U.S. history. Alongside the Asian Tusnami and London’s 7/7 bombings, the reporting of them may also come to be seen as a defining moment in participatory or citizen journalism. I was struck by a number of issues newsrooms had to confront.
Does mainstream media’s promotion of citizen journalism encourage risk-taking?
The iconic video from Jamal Albarghouti — was submitted to CNNs i-reports citizen journalism project. Widely lauded, it nevertheless led observers including lhe Philadelphia Daily News’ Ellen Gray to ask whether the lure of recognition by traditional media is prompting citizens to take unnecessary risks.
Is there a risk of repeating unfounded rumours found on the social web?
Facebook the social networking site which focuses on students was the forum for many tributes to those killed. And friends struggling to make contact via phone were able to check whether students were OK via their Facebook pages. But social networking sites like Facebook were used by bloggers attempting to establish the identity of the killer and a Virginia Tech student whose online profile in LiveJournal graphically illustrated his penchant for guns, found himself the target of much abuse. Wired made the observation that mainstream media had not named the accused but this changed when he later turned to traditional media to clear his name.
Does the advent of social media render censoring of material on the grounds of taste irrelevant?
NBC agonised over screening parts of the killer’s ‘multimedia manifesto’ and attracted criticism. But seasoned bloggers like Dave Winer point out the tendency for such material to end up on the Web eventually anyway. Winer advocates allowing citizens to make up their own minds whether to watch or not.
How should journalists handle requests to use material from social media?
On photo-sharing site Flickr a Virginia Tech Shooting pool was set up attracting a number of media enquiries about access to the images. If, as in this case, media requests are made via comments in discussions or blogs, the interested reader can see the newsgathering process in the raw. Journalists leave highly visible footprints and are going to have to learn to step lightly.
Are blogs and social networking sites ‘fair game’ for journalists looking for quotes?
The BBCs Robin Harman, whose personal blog is widely followed by journalists, was one of the first to start compiling eyewitness accounts from blog entries. Some of those he sampled found themselves being contacted directly by journalists for interviews, and some found that objectionable. Robin admits to being shaken by the experience and advocates greater sensitivity among journalists to what should be considered private at such times.
Do journalists have the skills to harness social media?
Amid the profusion of content sources and the huge volume of comment, Shane Richmond, community editor for the U.K.s Daily Telegraph, likened seeking original sources to looking for a needle in a haystack and references Paul Bradshaw’s call for journalists to become proficient in Technorati, YouTube and their like.
I’m not sure about the answers, I’m certain the questions aren’t going away. What do you think?
Mark Jones is Reuters Global Community Editor
Photo credit: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
Trackback
51 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I think it is pretty sad that they showed the video but bleeped out the cursing. What is wrong with our society? God for bid people hear the “F” word. We can encourage other people to do horrible things by showing them that they will have a platform to project their rants on afterwords but make sure you don’t use bad language. It is the same reason why networks don’t show people running on the field during sporting events because they don’t want to encourage it, but when it comes to a murderous rampage, the media is all for exploiting it to no end. NBC makes me sick.
- Posted by HankFollow the money. The only reason NBC made this “hard” decision was for ratings. Please let NBC and it’s SPONSORS know of your disgust with their decision to air this journalistic trash.
There is nothing NOTHING that I will gain by viewing this video. It is not news, it is sensationalism when this trash is aired and regurgitated ad nauseum. NBC should be ashamed.
Imus is removed from the airwaves for his disgusting and vile remarks but this evil is allowed a forum to rant and rave. HYPOCRITS we are if we allow this MURDERER a public forum to spew his vile over and over. What is it that is so important for the public to see? That evil exists?
ANY copycats that result from this…the blood is on the hands of NBC and its poor excuse for a news organization. Now that mentally deranged people know they can be infamous by shooting a bunch of innocents it’s not a matter of if, but when.
NBC has shown it’s true colors. There is no integrity in the pursuit of $$ and ratings. Please PLEASE notify the sponsors of this News program and put the fear of losing $$ into the executives at NBC and then see if they will continue to imortalize this coward. I can’t believe (or maybe I can) that these so called journalists are so STUPID. You’ve (NBC) succeeded at imortalizing a murderer and giving his sick rantings the infamy he would never have achieved (or deserved) in life. I wonder how you sleep at night. DISGUSTING
- Posted by T HamiltonI will tell you why this happened and why it will continue to happen. The answer is NOT in Cho’s
ill ramblings or any part of his corrupted mind.
32 people died for Cho’s FREEDOM. They died for his right to refuse treatment. Sadly it isn’t
any more complicated than that. We have a system and at present, a state-of-the-art (psychology)
that cannot and in some cases, will not allow the safety of the masses to outweigh the freedoms
of the ill. The stigma of mental illness and past abuses and predjudices against individuals
suffering from mental illnesses (of all kinds) fueled policies and programs to right these wrongs.
The result is that an individual, paranoid and delusional, can decide, even in the depths of
their illness to refuse what limited resources are available. They are allowed to decide the
cost/benefit of medication side-effects against what quality of life they can get from the medi-
cation. Psychiatry will not, and in fact asserts that it cannot, predict with sufficient accuracy
whether a person will be violent or violent, again after an episode. Psychiatric information about
an individual is protected health information and can’t be shared, legally.
Many families who are living with loved ones suffering from these illnesses, suffer themselves
with the out of control behavior that doesn’t Exactly fall under legal definition of danger. They get
to watch these loved ones drift farther and farther into their illness and away from any kind of
decent, independent, safe, healthy life.
It’s a mess. Political correctness demands we not speak this truth for fear of offending those
- Posted by karenwith these illnesses or causing discimination towards them. So, folks, know this. He isn’t the
last and those that follow will sound and behave just like him cuz it’s the illness and the system.
That’s why talking heads say things like “just like other acts in the past, warning signs were
there and nothing was done”. It’s because the warning signs are the same for this type of
illness and because nothing CAN be done, if the individual doesn’t hurt themselves or others.
. . . . . . . . at least until they do something like this.
I’m looking for a certain level of professionalism from the mainstream media. I expect it, actually. I’m ok with some things not being aired while I’m eating dinner or at a moment when my kid is in the room. I may want access to that information in another setting, though, but the mainstream media needs to be different from the social media. Tough questions, yes.
- Posted by Jim GrisanzioJesus! C’mon people…do we not allow anyting “unpleasant” to be said or displayed? Who is going to decide what is “ok” and not? Does anyone here understand why the Constitution exists? So we ignore, or coverup what was in htis kids head until the next one comes along? Don’t you think it is important to “know” what is behind these kinds of asocial disconnects? Like Columbine, we need to “expose” what the hell is happening and address it….but ya can’t do that with censorship! Remember that your mind is like a parachute…it only works if it is open.
- Posted by Mark K.On the one hand I applaud that the victims have received faces and stories so quickly. That was a lesson we learned in 9/11, the importance of testifying to what has been lost, and the newsmedia have applied it well here.
- Posted by J.D.On the other hand the media seems irresponsible in the airing of Cho’s images and words. Killers can be frighteningly memorable. Cho himself was clearly influenced by the Columbine killers. I also suspect he may have been influenced by that earlier mass killer, Samuel Comstock of the whaleship Globe, whose ax took the lives of his captain and crew in retaliation for what Comstock perceived as poor treatment. His murderous cries that night, “I am the bloody man; I have the bloody hand!” may have been in Cho’s mind too, if Ishmael/Ismail Ax is indeed the Melvillean allusion it seems to be [the Globe being one of the main stories informing Moby-Dick's events.] With copycatting a proven syndrome, the media must be more responsible about their role in the transmission of such stories and images.
Media needs to police itself quickly and remove (censure) the irresponsible people of it’s own accord. Or face a change that they don’t want. (i.e.) Change in the law regarding the constitution’s “freedom” of the press. What a concept. You idiots are a waste of my time.
- Posted by D.TaylorHere we go again. Media comes out with story solely for “shock and awe” value with video of this lunatic, then sits back and claims to have “agonized” over whether or not to show it. Once again ratings trump sensitivity for the victims’ families, the Va.Tech community and those of us who sincerely hope this SOB spends eternity in hell. His mental illness isn’t the issue-32 of our best and brightest are gone for no reason.
- Posted by Jim WhitlockI was astonished last night to see wall-to-wall exposure of the killer’s publicity kit on MSNBC. Suppose I were to rig myself up in a gaudy outfit, parade around with guns or a funny mask, then mail my DVD to NBC. Would my egotistical films and photos get air time? Would I finally have my 15 minutes?
Of course not. In order to pass the NBC audition, I would first have to kill at least a couple of dozen young people. Then my self-glorification would go out on endless loops for hours and days, ready for teenagers and young adults all over the country, and even in other parts of the world, to use as a template for their next emotional crisis.
NBC, I am so disappointed. Your decision to retain Keith Olbermann and to support his political statements has been so heartening. But this is despicable.
- Posted by RalphVirginia Massacre and Other Tragedies
The recent tragic events in Virginia require some comment. The death toll in this suicide massacre was around 33 people including the killer. This is the equivalent of an every day suicide bombing in Iraq, and to the families of victims they are equally tragic. Unfortunately, the attention paid to these events by the media is quite disparate. A similar suicide related death toll in Baghdad hardly rates a mention. This calls into question considerations of the relative values of a human life in the eyes of the media.
It should also be noted that one of the prime motivations for this type of massacre is the probability of posthumous publicity. The killer in Virginia certainly got his dividend. It really is time for the media to examine their competitive motivation in the amount of prurient publicity given to these tragic events. There is a strong probability of a linkage between frequency and magnitude of these events, and the publicity provided by compliant media eager to outsell their rivals and maximise their associated advertising revenue.
- Posted by Greg AngeloI do not think it is realistic to expect NBC to not make publicly available contents of the package they received.
I would even argue that NBC’s actions served the public good in that it answered many questions about who this person was and gave insight into this person’s mental state.
I believe this was necessary so that the nation could get a handle on what and why this happened and each of us could make an assessment on what the chances of it happening again are.
- Posted by Scott