The tragedy of the Sandy Hook massacre not only opened American eyes to policy and social issues affecting our nation, but it also illuminated some of the shoddy inner workings of the mechanism that shared this information with us in the first place: the media.
Through news websites, Twitter, Facebook and other networks, the American public knew of the events occurring in Newtown, Conn. just minutes after they began. And as time passed and more interest was garnered, questions were raised. Why is this happening? Who is doing this? What is happening to these people? Ours is an easily intrigued and interested culture. It is in our nature to raise questions about events that shock and disturb us.
Thankfully, our media outlets are able to satiate our hunger for information. But sharing the news is not always an act of altruism — information sharing is a for-profit industry. And it is through the media’s overwhelming desire for page views that we, the intrigued public, bear witness to unethical measures. In the hours after the shooting, journalists and reporters flocked to the elementary school. While some interviewed police officers and respondents to the shooting, others sought the input of children.
Consulting kids, many of whom were traumatized by the events that occurred at Sandy Hook, is no display of journalistic integrity. It is a cruel and invasive act that only disrupts a community, and disruption is the last thing needed by the residents of Newtown. There is a fine line between reporting on an event and dealing more damage after tragedy strikes a community. If the success of your report depends on a statement from a child, perhaps your report needs some work.
When it comes to modern journalism, it is often said that “if it bleeds, it leads.” That is, tragic stories with extreme details attract the most viewers, regardless of whether or not those details were obtained ethically. As empathetic people, we tune in to certain stories just to see how much “bleeding” there really is. Stories like Newtown provoke ethical dilemmas for journalists. How can they maintain their duty to inform the public without manipulating the emotions of the affected and the consumers? Just like it is unethical to violate the privacy of children for a headline, it is wrong to intrude upon a community to obtain sensational, violent details. Likewise, the media should not attack consumers’ emotions with violent reports for the sake of profit.
Amidst tragedy in places like Newtown, it often becomes easy to forget the community itself. But despite the policy issues these horrific events bring to the table, it is wrong to define a thriving town by a political debate or the media’s fascination. The phrase “school shooting” is not a pleasant one to have in my vernacular, but it is preferable to “pulling a Columbine” — an inconsiderate statement that disregards the people involved in this tragedy.
Shootings like that at Sandy Hook bring many important topics up for discussion — topics I believe are worth discussing. But among the significance of these issues remains the need for respect from the media. One way to help the problem is to shrink the already massive reporting force. The White House provides news to the public with smaller press pools that report back to a collective source, as opposed to sending hordes of eager journalists to an event. Perhaps this sort of organization is what the popular media needs. Not only would it reduce the amount of intrusion suffered by a grieving community, but also it would provide more condensed and concise, rather than sensationalized, reports.
Most importantly, the media must stop abusing the well-being of individuals. People should be treated as people, not commodities for reporters to snatch in hopes of getting an eye-catching headline. That especially includes children who have been affected by tragedy, individuals who should be left to heal after an event rather than continuously reminded of it. In journalism, sometimes less is more.
While it will take time for the entire system to change, I hope that the discourse of media ethics serves as a wake-up call to journalists, both successful and aspiring. Getting thousands of views on a news segment is gratifying, but the first priority should be the ethical and proper treatment of others, not profit. The media is an important part of a democratic society, and as such, it should work with and for the people, not against it.