We knew his name.
We saw what he did, when he did it, and where.
The only questioning remaining after last week's Virginia Tech massacre was why? Why would a classmate repeatedly empty guns into fellow students, stopping only when he decided to point one of his weapons at his own face and blow it off.
Even someone who's never written a news story for pay or a college grade knows the questions: who, what, when, where and why. They are the questions any reporter worth his/her salt answers every time they sit at a keyboard or crack a mike.
That's what NBC did last week--when it aired portions of the gunman's homemade media kit.
The network is getting grief in some circles. Family members, survivors and victims' friends shunned NBC in protest. Some critics said running the ramblings gave the shooter what he sought from the grave: validation.
Another publication suggested another alternative: web-only broadcast, so that only those who actively sought the ramblings could actually access them. Read their take here:
http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=31844
I disagree.
NBC handled the shooter's package responsibly--alerting authorities immediately upon it's arrival. It shared the contents with rivals. It edited profanity. And, it let the contents speak for themselves: we saw what investigators did after pouring through the manifesto, that this kid had plenty of anger, tons of issues, and no discernible motive other than a twisted rage for a world he saw as hopelessly tilted against him.
Making the contents an Internet-exclusive keeps the news from those who don't have computers. Granted, that number is dwindling, but it's still a significant. It would also leave NBC open to accusations of capitalizing on the tragedy by driving web traffic to it's site exclusively, then using those "hits" to attract Internet advertisers.
Paraphrasing what the killer said--without audio and video that viewers already knew existed--would leave listeners wondering what was "left out". The questions would always linger, and the conspiracy buffs, enabled by the web, would have a field day filling in the blanks.
Who, what, when, where, and why. They're the questions that are supposed to be answered, even when they're difficult to look at or hear. Let the listener and viewer decide how much they want to absorb, and at their own pace. That's why there's an on/off button on televisions and radios, as well as a channel changer.
We saw what he did, when he did it, and where.
The only questioning remaining after last week's Virginia Tech massacre was why? Why would a classmate repeatedly empty guns into fellow students, stopping only when he decided to point one of his weapons at his own face and blow it off.
Even someone who's never written a news story for pay or a college grade knows the questions: who, what, when, where and why. They are the questions any reporter worth his/her salt answers every time they sit at a keyboard or crack a mike.
That's what NBC did last week--when it aired portions of the gunman's homemade media kit.
The network is getting grief in some circles. Family members, survivors and victims' friends shunned NBC in protest. Some critics said running the ramblings gave the shooter what he sought from the grave: validation.
Another publication suggested another alternative: web-only broadcast, so that only those who actively sought the ramblings could actually access them. Read their take here:
http://www.tvweek.com/article.cms?articleId=31844
I disagree.
NBC handled the shooter's package responsibly--alerting authorities immediately upon it's arrival. It shared the contents with rivals. It edited profanity. And, it let the contents speak for themselves: we saw what investigators did after pouring through the manifesto, that this kid had plenty of anger, tons of issues, and no discernible motive other than a twisted rage for a world he saw as hopelessly tilted against him.
Making the contents an Internet-exclusive keeps the news from those who don't have computers. Granted, that number is dwindling, but it's still a significant. It would also leave NBC open to accusations of capitalizing on the tragedy by driving web traffic to it's site exclusively, then using those "hits" to attract Internet advertisers.
Paraphrasing what the killer said--without audio and video that viewers already knew existed--would leave listeners wondering what was "left out". The questions would always linger, and the conspiracy buffs, enabled by the web, would have a field day filling in the blanks.
Who, what, when, where, and why. They're the questions that are supposed to be answered, even when they're difficult to look at or hear. Let the listener and viewer decide how much they want to absorb, and at their own pace. That's why there's an on/off button on televisions and radios, as well as a channel changer.
1 comment:
I had to agree with Vince Vitrano, on his blog, when he said that ratings ARE what tv is after.
I'm glad that the video is restricted now, there is no more for those of us outside of law enforcement to glean from it. But it was news.
I believe it is no more shameful for a tv station to admit they need/want ratings than it is for my employer to pay me for showing up to work every day.
It was done as 'tastefully' as is possible...in an impossible situation.
Post a Comment