As raw as the events are, I'd like you to think about the Northern Illinois mass shootings and the media implications.
Check out news organizations:
- Chicago Tribune
- Washington Post
- New York Times
- CNN
just to name a few. How are they handling the coverage? What's the level of sensitivity? Of information? Are you getting insights? Or repeats of the same information? How are they handling the questions of mental health? Of victims' stories? What writing has resonated most with you? What images? What things shouldn't have appeared?
Then I want you to look at the strat comm angles. I know this seems odd, but this is a story that was handled by PR people, the university communications staff at NIU. Go to their Web site and look at the information. Did they provide enough info and do it quickly enough? Look at some of the info updates earlier on. I found them interesting because they didn't just update and replace info. Instead, they used strikethrough to show what info had been updated or replaced. Watch the press conferences and examine those interactions. What role did public relations play in this tragedy and was it done ethically and effectively?
Friday, February 15, 2008
NIU Shootings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I guess the most interesting aspect for me is the student newspaper coverage of this event. The Northern Star.
Because you're students you're in a way directly involved with the events, yet at the same time it is your responsibility to cover the events.
With everyone else running away and hiding etc it seems like it must be difficult for these kids to pull out voice recorders, cameras, video cameras, etc.
What if you were in the actual lecture hall, are you always a reporter regardless of the risk, or do you scurry out for safety like any average joe?
As the story was breaking yesterday, I was on CNN.com and the NIU Web site constantly until 6 p.m. I found it interesting how quickly CNN was updating the story. I had to keep refreshing the page because it was a new story about every three minutes. They were continually updating the number of wounded, starting out at about eight all the way up to 18 last night at 6 p.m., then today the official number of 21.
It was great to be able to know the numbers as soon as they came out. I feel that CNN did a fine job of reporting the story, taking quotes from witnesses and the police they could get a hold of. Sensitivity as been shown the entire time, at least on the website. They didn't make assumptions, but updated just as information came out. I was glad it wasn't another flop like when Heath Ledger died and the media released false information before they knew the whole story. Overall, CNN.com has done a great job of covering this story so far.
Updates on all Web sites were very regular which was nice, although solid details were not as available. The number of deaths and wounded students before the 8:00 p.m. DeKalb police press conference varied a great deal and were different on almost every site, which was frustrating but understandable. I am of the opinion that something shouldn't be printed until it is confirmed. And if that means waiting literally a few minutes for an update instead of putting up a large range, like NBC's "15-22 wounded" around 5:00, then so be it.
The editor's at NIU's student paper, the Northern Star did a fantastic job of getting coverage on the web almost as regularly as CNN and NBC News. And what they put up was very factual and had no element of doubt in it. There photographs and stories were put on the AP wire and used in stories across the nation. I think they should be extremely proud of themselves for such strong reporting during such a difficult time.
The night of the shooting, the only television material I could find was Nancy Grace. All the other news channels were going over election material. I just thought there would be more time devoted to the shooting by the major news channels. Im not even going to begin discussing my opinions of Nancy Grace, to put it nicely.
i visited several media news outlets thursday night and found a wide range of information. the reports varied: 4 killed, 5 including shooter, 5 not including shooter. some reported 14 shot, others 22. geology class or geography class. some details maybe arent that significant, but it is difficult to determine the truth and decide what info you trust when there is discrepency.
some websites had virtually the same info and same quotes as others. i couldnt find much agreement besides that there was a shooting and several people died.
also, in the day following, there were headlines that the shooter was off of his medication and also that he didnt fit the profile of a shooter. i have a problem with stressing info like this - there is the assumption that if someone takes medication and goes off of it, they will lose it and go shoot people. the other assumption is that others should have been able to visibly tell that something was wrong with the shooter, or find some simple explanation for it - he listens to a certain type of music, is obsessed with death, is withdrawn, etc. its not that simple.
It is interesting to see how papers like the Chicago Tribune or Sun-Times covered the event versus other newspapers. The fact that the shooting was in Illinois makes it more local, and that is clearly reflected in the stories. While the Post focused on comparing the shooting to Virginia Tech, Chicago papers had stories on each individual student. The Tribune and Sun-Times had sources like the shooter's family and friends. Even though I am from Chicago, I personally think this made for a much more interesting story for anyone to read.
I think the New York Times and the Chicago Sun-Times covered the story in a human interest sort of way, which reflects the proximity of the event. The Washington Post offers a slide-show, which I thought was kind of interesting because neither one of the Illinois papers did. And some where, each of the papers on Katy's post compared this event to the Virginia Tech shootings.
To me, the most interesting thing about the coverage is that both the NYTimes and CNN wrote stories that focused on the gunman and the fact that he was a nice guy... I'm sure that's true but I think there was too little coverage on the vicitims and their families, etc.
what kinds of factors might play into their covering the gunman more than the victims?
Maybe it's good that they focused more on the shooter than the victims to give the families more privacy and time to grieve. Do we really need to know all the details about the families right now?
I was really impressed at how soon outlets like CNN had coverage running of the shootings. I was actually in J202 lab and there was already video and stories available by about 4 o'clock. The information was given out readily although some of the details differed. I thought the breaking coverage was well done.
However, in dealing with the coverage of the gunman, some people thought it was insensitive to mention that he was on medication. I think in a time of tragedy, people will grasp for any answer. It may not be right to point to his medication and claim that was the cause, but blame is a natural reaction. We want a reason to somehow make sense of senseless action. Maybe blaming medication makes it easier for us to cope with the situation.
In relation to the NIU shooting, Fred Phelps and his fellow Westboro Baptist Church members plan to protest the vigils held on the NIU campus. According to WBC, God sent that shooter as punishment for America's acceptance of homosexuality. While I am for free speech, I believe this is just offensive. What happened at NIU is a tragedy and WBC should have the decency to respect those who passed in this horrible shooting.
great addition to the thread. given that they clearly aren't going to censor themselves, should they be censored by NIU? shouted down by others? what's the right way to handle speech you find offensive?
I also am offended by the church protesting the vigils held for the victims. I see no reason NIU should give them space for their free speech as they are healing and mourning the loss of their students. Its like the students at Penn State dressing up as Virginia Tech victims for Halloween last year. There is just no place for mockery of victims of school shootings. And I see the church's reaction as making a mockery of the tragedy.
I also want to commend the reporters at The Northern Star for their coverage of the shooting and those at all the other universities with tragedies like this. As the campus editor at one of the newspapers here, I just can't imagine what that would be like. I honestly see myself immediately having to put aside any scared feelings or sadness and report as it is my job -- even if I was in the actual lecture hall. My thoughts are with them as they will continue to report on friends, classmates, siblings and professors affected by the tragedy.
I first heard about the shootings in the NYTimes. It was on the front page, i thought it was covered pretty well but i dont think it received as much attention as it got friday morning.
The element of this story that bothered me was the invasion of privacy by the news media on the shooter's father. All the major outlets mentioned that he broke down crying and pleaded with reporters to leave him alone. It's way too soon after this tragedy to be bothering him with questions. What possible good could come from interviewing him? To me, there is a big difference between gathering follow-up info for a story and exploiting a person's grief. Where will journalists draw the line and realize that some things simply are not newsworthy?
I remember being glued to the TV set when the VT shootings occurred in April. It seemed like that was the only thing on. We, as Americans, became obsessed with knowing why, how and who this happend to.
This time around, the TV news is not only covering the NIU shootings. With the primaries being such a commodity, the media is curious to know what the GOPs think of this event. I believe that the news' lack of total coverage(and by that I mean obsession, not that they are witholding information) is actually more appropriate with respect to the vicitims and their families. The news media has kept these very pesonal lossses more on that scale, rather than making the lives of the vicitms public.
One aspect of this tragedy that has come into the spotlight is the emergency response and notification system. After Virginia Tech, critics stressed the importance of a fast emergency alert system.
NIU was able to put their system to the test after Thursday's events, and unfortunate as it is for them to have to utilize it, it's good to know that it worked. Looking at their website, I liked that they didn't delete and update things, but rather crossed them out. This gave students all the details of the developing story, not just the refined version.
I think it's important that students knew exactly what was going on.
it's unfortunate virginia tech and niu had to happen, but it's good to see we are learning from our mistakes.
I think that the University handled the situation extremely well. Police arrived within 2 minutes of the first 911 call and all classes were cancelled and buildings locked down as soon as they heard word that a gunman may be on campus. I was also in j202 lab and around 4 PM the University provided local newspapers with information to update on their websites as soon as they recieved new information. They successfully utilized their safety plan that they implemented shortly after Virginia Tech and I really think they did a fine job notifying students, faculty, and family members on the current status of the gunman and safety concerns.
Although the gunman was enrolled in the University of Illinois, I am curious as to why he chose that particular professor on the campus he used to attend? It seems to me like the University is focusing too much on the community's perception of the student and the activities he was involved with- I understand that there is no way to pinpoint why someone would do something so senseless and there are no clear answers like the dusturbing photos and letters left behind by the gunman at Virginia Tech- but the first thing he did was walk into the lecture hall and shoot the Professor. Why this professor, I want to know if he took a course with him or if he ever had a relationship with the professor he shot first.
While the University handled the situation well, I still am searching for answers.
I followed this story from the beginning because I'm from Illinois and have a number of friends that attend that university. I was terrified to hear what happened and just wanted to know the facts. I felt that the media tried really hard to get news out quickly, but they didn't have any concrete information to give. For example, there was a press conference on t.v. with the president of the university, but he answered almost every other question with an I don't know. Also, the news stories online and broadcast first reported that there were no fatalities, but then a little while later there was 1 and then ultimately 6. Also, the number of shots fired kept getting changed as well as the type of class it was. I saw published that the class was a geology class and that it was an oceanic studies class. I guess I just felt confused and uncomfrotable with the media's need to deliver information even though it wasn't concrete. I feel that the media was just rushing to provide coverage because it was an event that they felt they could sensationalize to some degree. To me, this seemed a bit insensitive to those involved and caused more chaos because nobody really delivered any concrete information.
I found it interesting that the sources with more proximity focused a lot more on the victims and the stories of the students. I was disappointed to see that with regard to the family of the shooter, their privacy could have been more respected in some sources.
The reporter station I was watching Thursday changed the number of dead mid-comment without mention why (that a new report came in or something to that effect). At the beginning of her comment 7 people were dead in the second half there were only 6. I understand that it probablly was a very chaotic situation but I still think they should have dealt with the changing information better, by acknowledging that info changed.
CNN had an interview with the shooter's ex-girlfriend. I thought this was an interesting perspective to seek out. She really had nothing bad to say about the shooter but it seemed like the reporter was hoping she would reveal some deep, dark secret about him. I feel like the media attempts to create a profile for a person who would be likely to carry out a school shooting. I have to admit my reaction to this incident was "Well, what was wrong with the shooter?". News outlets should stay away from profiling a shooter as mentally ill. Even if information on the shooter's mental health makes the story juicer I think other aspects of the story are more relevant.
What are the implications of another university shooting? It seems like they are occurring more often. Is there anything UW Madison could do to further prevent something from happening here? Maybe there is no certain way to react in this situation. I feel like maybe this is something the university should address. Perhaps a workshop like "What to do when in the midst of a school shooting". I know the university police have set reaction plans, but what are students to do?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/17/shooter.girlfriend/index.html
This article details the reaction of the shooter's girlfriend. What makes this case so disturbing to me is the lack of warning signs, the lack of a clear motive. You would think that his girlfriend might have had some better idea as to why this happened, but she doesn't.
**Baty said she feels sorry for the victims and their families and friends. "I know what they're going through, and I just can't tell them how sorry I am," she said. But, she added, "He was a victim, too, and I know they probably won't want to hear that, but he was."**
This last point about him being a victim is interesting as well. Are we supposed to pity him, as falling prey to an illness that overtook him? Should he have survived- would he have plead insanity?
As I saw the news coming in, I noticed information kept changing. While I realize that it is hard to confirm things in a flurry of activity, I don't think the media should report information until they are absolutely certain that they are getting 100% fact. If a detail is not yet confirmed, I think it's fine to simply state that you do not yet know the details and that you're doing your best to get them. When bits and pieces of unconfirmed news keep coming in, rumors can start as people are left with only a part of the story.
Even days after the event, I'm surprised how the articles are still tending to focus on the gunman and his motives, rather than on the victims. Most of the leads and first halves of the articles compare the shooting with VA Tech, almost ignoring the fact that is a different incident with different victims. I like how the Tribune has begun uploading profiles of the victims.
I think one of the more interesting/insightful comments from this series of articles was in the Washington Post. I think the fact that the same Internet gun site that sold the VA Tech shooter his gun, sold the NIU shooter his is astounding. I think that this was an intruiging nugget to ad to the piece, and could prompt further conversation on gun control and regulations.
You can really tell the distinction between a national paper and a more local paper in covering these events. The Chicago Tribune is the only source that still has a good amount of coverage on its home page, putting more of a focus on the victims with profiles, etc. The NY Times and Washington Post have little, if any, coverage on their home pages. They also seem to be focusing more on the shooter and his girlfriend as of today. I think this is important, but they need to be careful to not loose sight of the victims.
I think the coverage of this story, at least online, has been more sensitive with imagery than the coverage of Virginia Tech.
I remember being so disturbed by the videos and photos of the gunman in the Virginia Tech story, which catered to the fear that he wanted to spread.
Post a Comment