Honestly, me writing a response to Marguerite Moritz's article is hard for me. This chapter discusses how the media that covered the 1999 Columbine high school shooting had many ethical implications due to its widely-accessible technologies and 'shock-level' content. For example, both the local and even national stations relied on weak sources like telephone calls to get 'specific' details of the tragic event. But when you think about it, if students supposedly from the actual school are first calling the newrooms and not the police and hospital, you would think this would be illogical and quite ridiculous. The fact the newsrooms even considered the calls to be reliable sources shows me how cell phone technology is in fact an easily accessible technology where anyone can use for any purpose. Regardless, the newstations violated the "ethics policies forumlated by the Radio-Television News Directors Asssociation for covering hostage situations" by hastily broadcasting and not checking up on some of their sources which turn out to be hoax calls (73). But what unsettles me the most when reading this article and even watching YouTube videos like the one above, is how the media took control of the situation by showing graphic, highly shocking footage afterwards. Yes, the murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold took their lives and the lives of 12 students and 1 teacher. But the media failed to present what other factors could have led them to commit such an act of hate and violence. The new coverage instead depicted the teenagers to be animals and not human beings which in turn justified its unethical act of glorifying the victims' fear for the sake of entertainment. No, I am not downplaying how malice and horrific Harris's and Klebold's crime was...but then again they too were people. By shooting the reactions of the victims and non-victims with and without their consent and by offering slightly simplified versions of the actual event, the media to some degree take the place of the Columbine shooters. So like the actual shooters, the media have its faults.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Ch.4 Instant Transmission: Covering Columbine's Victims and Villians
Honestly, me writing a response to Marguerite Moritz's article is hard for me. This chapter discusses how the media that covered the 1999 Columbine high school shooting had many ethical implications due to its widely-accessible technologies and 'shock-level' content. For example, both the local and even national stations relied on weak sources like telephone calls to get 'specific' details of the tragic event. But when you think about it, if students supposedly from the actual school are first calling the newrooms and not the police and hospital, you would think this would be illogical and quite ridiculous. The fact the newsrooms even considered the calls to be reliable sources shows me how cell phone technology is in fact an easily accessible technology where anyone can use for any purpose. Regardless, the newstations violated the "ethics policies forumlated by the Radio-Television News Directors Asssociation for covering hostage situations" by hastily broadcasting and not checking up on some of their sources which turn out to be hoax calls (73). But what unsettles me the most when reading this article and even watching YouTube videos like the one above, is how the media took control of the situation by showing graphic, highly shocking footage afterwards. Yes, the murderers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold took their lives and the lives of 12 students and 1 teacher. But the media failed to present what other factors could have led them to commit such an act of hate and violence. The new coverage instead depicted the teenagers to be animals and not human beings which in turn justified its unethical act of glorifying the victims' fear for the sake of entertainment. No, I am not downplaying how malice and horrific Harris's and Klebold's crime was...but then again they too were people. By shooting the reactions of the victims and non-victims with and without their consent and by offering slightly simplified versions of the actual event, the media to some degree take the place of the Columbine shooters. So like the actual shooters, the media have its faults.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment