*Note: I apologize if these statements may seem too
wordy, rambling, or “academic.” This is how I think. With that in mind, I have
attempted to edit the following down to reduce confusion and/or redundancy.
Regarding the horrific shooting that occurred in Aurora, CO
in the early morning hours of July 20, 2012, words truly cannot express the
grief and shock felt by this individual as well as an entire nation. Truly,
this signifies a loss of innocence regarding one of America’s, as well as the
world’s, favorite escapist pastimes.
Due to the enormous amount of coverage and narrative
regarding that event, it is not my intention to write about what happened. My
purpose in writing this is to document my observations and thoughts regarding
the aftermath of said incident, specifically in two regards: in the coverage of
the news media, in all formats, on that day; and in the reactions of
individuals across the country.
As soon as the news broke on that Friday morning, I knew we,
as a people, were going to be in for an interesting day. Call me cynical or
pessimistic, but I have enough knowledge of how media/journalism works to know
that it’s only a matter of time before a tragedy such as this is politicized and
the facts warped and adjusted so statements and “conclusions” can be
extrapolated from the most minute of details. Therefore, I was neither shocked
nor surprised, but saddened when at 8:30 a.m. I heard the suspect described not
as “shooter” or “perpetrator,” but as “Tea Party member James Holmes.”
As was revealed later in the day, that was a flawed piece of
reporting. Apparently an affiliate at ABC News had found a connection through
the tea party website listing a “James Holmes” in Aurora, CO as a member.
Instead of verifying the link, ABC ran that as a description. It turns out that
the James Holmes they were linking to the tea party is in his 50’s and has no
relation to the shooter other than the coincidental name similarity. It appears
as if no additional research or fact checking was done on the story, but ran
as-is in an attempt to paint a broader picture, whether or not the picture was
heinously flawed.
Later that particular day, the office where I am interning
had a television on and tuned to a large cable news network for the duration of
the workday. What I heard over the course of those several hours only continued
to sadden me, as it seemed to signal a true end to (or perhaps, nonexistence
of) competent crisis journalism in America. At about 10:00 a.m. a guest
correspondent for the network made a statement in which he declared:
“Now, I’m gonna call this guy the Joker.
He obviously was emulating the Joker; maybe even thought he was the Joker. And actually, the movie,
‘Batman 3’ is also known as ‘The Joker’s Revenge’.”
Keep in mind that this was before the official press conference, before any official
statements had been made about the suspect’s arrest, and before anything had
been released regarding the suspect’s hair color or supposedly referring to
himself as “Joker.” Also, never has this film been known as “Joker’s Revenge”
or been affiliated with the character of the Joker in any way. To me, it seems
as though this “analyst” was making a mad grab for some, any, attempt at discerning a possible motive. He was not concerned
with facts or that almost none of what he said could be verified at the time. He
was just theorizing and passing it off as news.
This type of reporting continued, though thankfully not
exclusively, throughout the day. After details of the suspect’s hair color were
released I heard several different colors (mostly red and orange) but one thing
remained constant: every organization that reported that the suspect had dyed
his hair concluded that he had done so in homage to the Joker. Here is yet
another point of contention. I am not trying to get into a comic-book fan
debate about semantics, but the Joker’s hair is and always has been green. I
can understand why journalists nationwide would want to jump to the conclusion that the suspect dyed his hair in
tribute to the Joker, but I still can’t rectify how anyone could report that as
news when the correlation doesn’t even match fact. (Last time I checked,
neither red nor orange were identifiable as green to a non-color blind
individual).
The more this continued, the more I was in disbelief at how
poorly the whole situation was being handled. I heard various accusations of
potential motive made (tea party member, occupy movement member, anarchist
protesting the film’s consumerism) without ever bothering to report the facts
or even support their theories in any way.
I said all that to get to this:
In times of crisis, particularly those caused by direct
human action (bombings, shootings, mass killings, etc.) I think it is human
nature to question “why?” In fact, I think this is the very first question
people ask, both of themselves and others, when faced with processing such an
event. Upon being informed of such despicable activity, the inquiring mind
attempts to find some sort of reasoning behind it, because no typical
individual can process it with rationale. I think the human mind, in these
situations, is not satisfied with knowing just the facts, but first wants an
explanation; hoping in some distant fantasy reach of the brain that there is
some magic combination of words that can make the event less devastating. Or,
perhaps it’s the case that humans, when faced with such a situation, cannot
accept the fact that humanity is truly depraved and that a fellow human being
is indeed capable of carrying out such an evil action. Therefore an attempt to
find some sort of catalyst other than pure evil must be sought. Unfortunately
this is a fruitless endeavor as there can be no justification to rectify the
pain and horror of these tragedies.
I think this mindset has carried over into the media, seeing
as how reporters and journalists are only human after all. As where the purpose
of the conventional news media should be to simply report the facts,
unfortunately this cannot always be the reality in a field where the message
sent to millions is subject to the human emotions of the reporter. Instead of
reporting minute by minute what details were known and verified and what
statements had been officially released, journalists across the country were
deviating from the facts by turning random bits of knowledge and rumors into
logical stretches in an attempt to find some explanation of motive.
Although the facts were being reported as they were made
known, the pervasive and constant question that superseded all knowledge was
“why?” I think journalists and commentators everywhere were attempting to
constantly answer that question, which is why theories and stories kept
changing as more facts were released.
While noble in intentions, I think there needs to be a shift
in priorities for journalists and all involved in news media. When faced with a
story of crisis that lacks an immediate motive or explanation, the question of
“why” should be the very last thing considered. Contemplating an answer to this
question will only again result in muddling of the facts and theorizing on the
part of individual journalists.
Instead, the four other questions should be of primary
concern: “What, Where, When, Who.” No attempt should be made to discern the
“why” until all other questions are answered thoroughly.
I applaud Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates for the
spectacular job done at the first official press conference given Friday
morning. When asked to detail police action, he gave only what had been
verified. When asked about potential motive or anything related, he did not
answer, recognizing that that was the least of concerns.
As much as it is against human nature, I think it is
necessary for those in media, journalism, or any form of communications, to
discipline ourselves to respond in the face of crises not in the ways in which
we necessarily desire, but in the ways we must in order to most effectively and
truthfully communicate our message.
I followed your thoughts quite well and this is great for a 'first blog'. It is a severe indictment on the press' habit of not checking facts before printing or announcing. It seems society accepts the press 'making' the news rather than just reporting on it and reporting it correctly. Unfortunately, it is one that the press deserves. Well done.
ReplyDeleteI hope that you are able someday to make a positive difference in this field, although your writing skills might overqualify you.
ReplyDelete