Others can and will comment on the senseless killings that took place on April 16th, 2007 at Virginia Tech. Many of them will do so far more eloquently than I can ever hope to. I will leave that to them. I wish, instead, to comment on the equally senseless media storm that is now centered on the university.
I suppose that some of it is to be expected. It is entirely reasonable for the major media outlets to dispatch a reporter or two to the scene of the bloodiest stooting in the country's history. I was disgusted, however, when I saw that Katie Couric and Brian Williams, two of the three anchors for the major networks, were already there at the scene. I would be surprised if Charles Gibson and Anderson Cooper weren't at the campus as well, I just didn't happen to see them.
What purpose was there in having the network news broadcast from the crime scene? Was there any value added by the anchor's presence? Well of course there was - ratings.
The news is an interesting business. As with all broadcast media, it is driven by ratings, and as unfortunate as it may be, bad news sells, and the worse the news, the better it is for the ratings. There is a difference, however, in thoroughly reporting the news, and exploiting the news. The reporting on the Virginia Tech shootings have crossed this line.
This story is certainly important enough to dominate the news. The problem is that there isn't enough information available for it to dominate the news. For students that were involved in the event, the last thing that they need is microphone stuck in their faces. Students not involved, on the other hand, do not have much (if anything) to offer. Telling the story is one thing, but to attempt to cover a story like this from every conceivable angle, not to mention calling in additional talking heads to speculate and postulate on what happened, why it might have happened and/or what could or should be done to prevent it from happening again, it crosses the line to exploitation.
Leaving Microsoft
12 years ago
