When Covering Gun Violence, shooter should be known, journalists say
In the wake of a mass shooting, extensive coverage floods TV stations, radio, newspapers, and most importantly social media. Most channels will do live 24-hour coverage updating the public on any new detail of the massacre. Since the news cycle is nonstop– a tragic event heightens the intensity of the coverage. During this time, however, news outlets are under immense analyzation regarding how they report a massacre.
Some may question if all this coverage is actually necessary. Does the public have a right to know every single detail? Or are some aspects of the massacre better left untold?
“It depends on the coverage. If facts are rehashed time and time again, I just don’t know how useful it is,” said Allison Dunne, the Hudson Valley Bureau Chief of WAMC Radio.
Dunne has been in the broadcasting industry for over a decade. Although she does not specifically cover gun violence, she has the experience of covering disastrous events firsthand. Dunne also reports on the aftermath of tragedies in the Hudson Valley.
Also, with the rise of citizen journalists in today’s digital age, anyone can take their smartphone and upload a picture or video at a massacre. However, these types of reports are not always beneficial to the public.
“There is the danger of someone who is at a mass shooting at a concert, and all of this is captured on the phone and put online,” Dunne said, “Then people are subject to images or words they aren’t ready for.”
Another questionable issue when it comes to covering a massacre is the fact that the shooter is gaining more attention, compared to the victims. However, Dunne believes that this is a question that needs to be answered for the public’s sake.
“I do think it’s important to know who the shooter is and their background,” said Dunne, “If that information is available and not put into a story, then people will be wondering, ‘Well who is it [the shooter]?”
In the Hudson Valley, Dunne has reported on tragic instances such as train derailments, where people (some of whom she knew personally) lost their lives. Additionally, the issue of refugee resettlement in the local area is a difficult story for Dunne to cover.
“Of course it affects me, I’m human. Certain things affect me more than others. There are nights where I’m awake thinking of things,” Dunne said.
In any story situation, Dunne believes journalists have the means to affect change and bring a lot of awareness to the public’s attention.
“Journalists allow the public to decide what they would do about a situation,” Dunne said.
The caveat, however, is if the community respects that media. In Dunne’s opinion, the power for change is contingent depending upon the respect received by a certain news publication.
“If that journalist or outlet has the respect of the community, then all the more power for change and recognition,” Dunne said.
Another perspective is offered by a journalist who believes in keeping up with the longevity of a story regarding tragic news events.
Dr. Robert Miraldi is an award-winning journalist and author who has taught at SUNY New Paltz for 34 years. He is a considered one of the nation’s leading experts in investigative reporting and on this issue of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. His background and expertise give him a unique perspective on the issue of gun violence and how the media covers mass shootings.
Miraldi said that the press tends to be good at surrounding an event and providing resources and reporters and covering the actual event. He said the two most important things to consider when covering a mass shooting are the identity of the shooter and the weapons he or she used. Miraldi believes that the media generally does a good job of reporting these key points. However, he said the media overall needs to do a better job of not letting a mass shooting dissipate from its coverage.
“The press fails us when they let the story disappear, when the story doesn’t have legs,” Miraldi said.
Miraldi said he wrote a lot of negative news stories himself over his career as a journalist.
He believes that the press generally has a desire to go after stories that are negative and problematic, which is a big reason for the high level of coverage that mass shootings receive from media outlets. He said that he wrote a lot of negative news stories himself over his career as a journalist.
“I think it’s always been the case that outlets prefer negative things,” Miraldi said. “It’s just the nature of news, we look at things that are problematic, hoping that they will be dealt with as a result.”
One of the most controversial questions in journalism is whether to give extensive coverage to the shooter of a mass shooting. Some believe that giving a shooter too much publicity may inspire others to commit similar actions, but Miraldi does not agree with this theory.
“Mostly you are dealing with people who are seriously mentally disabled. I’m not sure that looking for publicity is a major factor in driving shooters to act,” Miraldi said. “I think you have to be careful in the press about how much information you reveal. I don’t believe shooters are driven by desire for publicity.”
Press coverage of mass shootings is a very contentious issue, and Miraldi’s responses illustrate the complexity of the debate.
Within the issues that arise when covering mass shooting, journalists face criticism when they focus stories on the perpetrator.
American media, through its meticulous coverage of gun violence, has come under scrutiny for unintentionally popularizing the names, lives, and photographs of mass shooters.
But as for Lawrence Striegel, a news editor for Long Island’s Newsday, this focus on the perpetrators is crucial in providing the public with complete transparency.
“The extensive coverage is necessary because it addresses the fears that people have both for their personal safety and for the direction our country is going in,” he said.
Striegel, who oversees production of the opinion pages at Newsday, is no stranger to this criticism of the press. He recalled his own experiences covering smaller-scale shootings, including the slaying of a New York State trooper in 1986.
“People would ask, why did you do a profile on the shooter? Shouldn’t the victim get equal space?” he said.
But for Striegel, coverage of the shooter fills an existential void for the public.
“When we zero in on a shooter, we are trying to figure out what drove someone to do something so terrible. I think that if the media doesn’t shine a light on that, then who will.”
As for victim coverage, Striegel said that reporters commonly engage with victims’ families, though these interactions sometimes evoke ethical dilemmas for journalists.
“You will find some relatives do not want to speak to you,” he said. “You have to remember as a journalist to be sensitive and to back off when people begin to resist.”
Following each massacre, an assortment of letters flood the Newsday opinion desk. Most of these letters, Striegel said, advocate tighter gun control measures, though some contend that the problem lies not with guns themselves, but with laws that are not enforced on gun ownership.
Newsday’s editorial board traditionally stands by the Second Amendment in not advocating the complete outlaw of guns, though it has championed wider restrictions such as universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons.
But with mass shootings making their way into the regular news cycles, media outlets are tasked with contributing to the conversation by providing novel insight — a duty that is certainly not easy, Striegel said.
“Sometimes you are writing and editorially, all that you can do is simply fill in the blanks with the location, the number of victims, and other key things, and again lament that this has happened again.”
Jillian M., Matt L., Alyssa H.
