One big dilemma for news directors--as a result of the ambush of two Virginia TV journalists Wednesday: whether or not to show video that captured the killings live on TV and which soon became viral.An initial video showed reporter, Alison Parker interviewing Vicki Gardner, a Virginia Chamber of Commerce director.
Soon into the video, shots break out and Parker is seen and heard screaming and running away from the shooter.
Most news outlets, including TV stations in the Bay Area did not show the video in its entirety-- instead showed a variation of it --with Parker's screams and several gunshots clearly audible.
Both Parker and photographer, Adam West died at the scene. Gardner is recovering and was reported to be in stable condition in a Roanoke, Virginia hospital.
A more graphic video, posted by the shooter himself, showed the entire episode, including the gunman placing the weapon before the three individuals who were unaware of his presence. That video, (WARNING--Disturbing and graphic) shows a more detailed, disturbing account of the shooting. No mainstream news outlets showed its content.
Later Thursday, 415 Media hopes to talk to Bay Area TV News reporters about their reaction and feelings about the Virginia tragedy.
*Follow me on Twitter
The photographer's name was Adam Ward. I think by viewing the shooter's video we all would be indulging that person's hoped for wishes. None of us, including mainstream outlets, should give him that "honor".
ReplyDeleteThe job of journalists (or those who promote themselves thusly) is not to decide whether or not to "indulge" a dead person, or direct societal emotions. It's to deliver the news,warts and all. That doesn't mean you have to show every gaping wound in a closeup, every blood drop repeatedly. Does any version of this horrific incident show a single drop of blood? a person dying on the ground? a bullet wound?Does it even show anyone being hit or killed by a bullet? In this case, the video and audio are more powerful for what they don't show, rather than what they do. When a news outlet, driven by corporate concern for "image", decides that their job is to sanitize an event because it's more comfortable that way, they are no longer doing news, they are doing public relations. BTW, the shooter isn't going to be aware of which news outlets do their job, and which don't . As Rush would say, he's achieved "room temperature".
ReplyDeleteTypical Christine to mention her lover Rush. Maybe it's the waist-size that appeals to her, which could explain the fascination with Bernie. Now, once again, she'll subject us to her "I gave Rush his job at KFBK" horseshit.
DeleteSanitize??? Good editorial sense is not "sanitizing". It's getting the necessary information out there without any unnecessary "shock factor". The shooter's recording adds nothing and it harms journalistic sensibilities to show it. Haven't the family and co-workers been through enough (and of course will go through more)???
DeleteUh, I didn't give Rush his job at KFBK.
DeleteChristine - please tell me what more could be gleaned from seeing this shooter video? Nothing! Sensibilities must, at times, guide prudent and sensitive (to the victim's family) reporting decisions. What is prudent and sensitive about your position???
DeleteWhat does the shooter's video add to the story - other than to give him a posthumous visual editorial? Nothing! Nothing but but more horror. No need for any news organization to show it or link to it. We understand quite well what happened.
ReplyDeleteDoes the video further the story is the question to be addressed. Some will say yes. You then have to weigh in on time of day (people eating dinner), how many people may have already seen it and finally come back to does it add to or further the story. The answer most often is not to show the video.
ReplyDeleteWeighing on my mind was something a 10 year said about a week after September 11. She asked a reporter to please not show the video of the World Training Center coming down. "How many times do I have to see my daddy die?
Journalists - those with a capital J - make editorial decisions hundreds of times per day, choosing which words and which images best tell the story. We know what happened. Seeing a gun in the frame or a trail of blood (if there was one), won't add to our knowledge and won't change the outcome. Nothing sanitized about it.
It's sad that a generation of liberals had their minds warped by their "journalists" of choice, Jon Stewart and Colbert. Even sadder, they didn't even know what was being done to them.
DeleteTell me about the "trail of blood" you imagined. You say that editorial decisions should be inspired or based on a scenario where a relative of a victim reacted to the woe of "having to see her daddy die". Life is real and life is earnest. She didn't actually ''see' her daddy die, at all. You would deny allowing the viewing of the actual proof of what happened in the most devastating attack in history on this country, because someone who is grieving is not happy in their grief. That's not news. Why would we even need television at all,? Television news, the best thing it does, is take us places we can't go ourselves, to let us know the reality of what is or has happened. Get off that sanctimonious high horse. Once again there is no blood, gore, bodies, bullet wounds...in the video at question.
DeleteYes Christine, please continue lecturing to the rest of the world about this tragedy, even after you've already gotten everything else wrong.
DeleteChristine Craft, unbelievable, I mean really unbelievable.
KGO Radio sent out a note saying they will NOT under any circumstances link to the video on the website or play the audio on the air. I think that's a good call
ReplyDeletePart of the reason the Vietnam War finally ended were the gruesome images of dead American soldiers broadcast night after night into living rooms across the country. It's one thing to read about war, but to actually witness someone dying is quite different. Perhaps if today's news directors were less concerned about the delicate sensibilities of their viewers (read: advertisers) this country would already have the kind of sensible gun control laws that would have prevented not only this but the dozens of massacres we've seen in recent years.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the shooters hand white and wearing a blue plaid shirt? Is this why they don't show the video because more people will see that it's not adding up??? Why was the interview live and not brought back to the studio for editing, how did he know they were there at 6:45 and so early before any witness could be their....why are their no security cameras ? False flag gun grabbing attempt .
ReplyDeleteI concur...you'd think this web-site would expose it to show the sham of it all. I'm not holding my breath, too bad RL, you could make some waves by showing the implausibility of this charade being promoted as a live feed murder. Accompanied of course, by agenda riddled relatives who mourn by going on national TV and repeating the same anti-gun meme from other recent shootings.
Deletehegelian, hegelian: problem, reaction, solution. from Sandy Hoax to Virginia, rinse and repeat.