Following up on this morning post, more great coverage on the coverage of the Va. Tech shooting. Arvinder Kang: Virginia Tech Shooting- News Coverage AnalysisBeet.TV: Newspapers Scramble to Cover Virginia Shooting with Video -- Washington Post and New

Aaaahhh, this was bound to happen.

VT students are posting information on myriad Web sites -- blogs, social networking sites such as MySpace, their "personal" home pages -- and getting a lot of attention from journalists seeking additional comment or confirmation that the students were indeed the authors of the information posted.

Many who are watching journalists' seemingly endless requests are angry. Blogger TextualDeviance (who links to SPJ.org and is passionate about journalism, I noticed) has an interesting take on the matter. Here's a portion of what she wrote:

"This is why so many people hate the media. They descend like packs in situations like this instead of simply letting the people closest to the event--and therefore the most appropriate to handle the story--get the story, and then syndicate that. There is no reason whatsoever that the Boston Herald shouldn't be using what the Collegiate Times gathered, instead of trying to get their own story by pestering the exact same sources. They're not going to get a scoop. They're not going to get a good story. They're not going to do anything except piss people off."

And then, when I saw what was among the first news releases of the victims' names, I noted at least one of the dead was from Massachusetts.

Roger Hamman of Cybersoc.com provides another interesting analysis of journalists' use of the Web to gather information. I agree with one of his points:

"Unsubstantiated rumour should never be presented as fact by news organisations but, perhaps, it's just fine to link to it so long as we add clear disclaimers. Surely that's better than dozens of journalists, researchers and reporters contacting the same student, who, along with his girlfriend, is likely to take months or years to fully understand the emotional and psychological effects of yesterday's tragic events. Must we really add a chorus of voices shouting 'give us your story, give us your story' to the horrorific memories they'll have of yesterday?"

Hamman also urges journalists to "carefully consider whether the content we've found online was ever intended to be seen by a wider audience and if any harm could be done by exposing it to that audience ..."

How anyone posting on the Web expects an ounce of privacy beats me -- but journalists should, indeed, consider the writer's expectation (misunderstanding?) of privacy when he or she posted.

I agree with most of what Christine has said. Victims and their families need to be treated with special sensitivity. Journalists need to use head and heart to cover a story like this lest they resemble a wolf pack in a feeding frenzy.

That said, I disagree on two points. First, this is not a "tragedy." A tragedy occurs when someone's poor judgment or uncontrollable factors cause harm. This mass murder is the deliberate act of a sick and evil mind. In this p.c. society, we don't like to talk about evil, but evil does exist and we should deal with it honestly.

Second, the notion that anyone who considers him or herself a journalist is a journalist is incorrect. Such a definition is no definition at all. It further muddies an already-murky concept. Here's my own definition of "journalist": a person using generally accepted research methods to report on a newsworthy subject or event for a legitimate media outlet.

At Mine Safety and Health News, we do not contact the families right after a tradegy. After Sago, we waited 4 months to speak with some family members about how they felt, how they were coping with their loses. It's what I would want if this happened to me. It's what I insist on as the owner of this publication who must deal with mining-related fatalities on a regular basis. We can get needed information from "officials," and hopefully they will have press communications in place (unlike at Sago).  Lay-off the families. They have a hard enough time. We can get the details and it does not have to be from the families trying to cope with losing their loved-one. And SHAME on NBC. That video should not have been made public. Our children, teenagers don't need these nightmares from seeing this on NBC or AOL. It's just not something I would have done as an editor AND an award-winning journalist.
-- Ellen Smith, Mine Safety and Health News

I would like to direct this comment to Ellen Smith.  First of all, what was NBC supposed to do?  They received the taped murder confession from the man that actually pulled the trigger.  Footage like this has been played time and time again.  While the footage may be graphic, the fact remains that he sent it to NBC for a purpose.  As a media outlet representing over a million people, I would say that NBC had every right to play the footage.  People all over the nation wanted to know "why?".  While this complicated question may not have been answered, at least something was learned from the video.  Second: after what we have already seen from the war in Iraq, graphic content has gone out the window.  Let's be honest, morals in journalism isn't quite the same as it used to be.  And finally, would CBS or ABC have done anything different in the same situation?  Probably not.  This is a "see it now," "hear it now" society.  I wonder what your editor would think if you received the same tape that NBC did.  To close, no offense intended, but why does an award-winning journalist misspell losses?        

Sorry about my one spelling mistake at 9 p.m. at night after waking up and working at 5 a.m. First of all, I AM the editor who people report to. There is nothing wrong with good old fashion ethical journalism and adhering to the the SPJ code of ethics -- no matter how our society changes. I do not believe that NBC or AOL  adhered to this code -- not that AOL is an "official" news outlet. I do not believe that NBC adhered to "Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity..." as outlined in our code of ethics. As far as my journalism awards - SDX award for Public Service in Newsletter Journalism (twice); recognized by the National Press Club, Newsletter Publishers Foundation, National  Federation of Presswomen -- a total of 22 awards all together. I am proud to say I did not have to hurt families and survivors like NBC did to get these awards.

I appreciate these comments and wanted to share a few more of my thoughts and observations of recent days -- and also to respond to some of these remarks with hopes of keeping our conversation rolling:

1. SPJ's national ethics committee members have discussed NBC's use of the Cho video and largely appear to agree with the sentiments of Jerry Dunklee, a professor at Southern Connecticut State University. Dunklee wrote that he told inquring reporters:

"... I would have used the material from Cho. It's not an easy decision. These kinds of decisions require a balancing of the public's right to know about a major news event with sensitivity toward victims and survivors. Journalists are trained to ask who, what, why, when, where and how. In this terrible story, we knew the answers to all of these questions ... except 'Why.' Why did this young man go on a killing rampage? His own words and pictures can get at part of that question. It's an important part of this story. That said, the news media should also 'minimize harm' by refusing to air or publish the same material over and over again. Particularly cable news channels should limit the times parts of the video or the still pictures are repeated in some endless loop. We don't serve the right to know by battering people, not just the survivors, with this part of the story."

(Please see Code Words, the ethics committee's blog, for compelling discussion about an array of issues in journalism.)

2. In response to Mark Stuart Ellison's thoughts about evil: I agree wholeheartedly that evil exists. I don't question that at all. There are cold and calculating people whose heinous acts can't be explained by anything other than an evil nature. They are in their right minds when they maim, murder and destroy.

And then there are people whose despicable behavior stems from mental illness. They are not in control, not in their right minds, when they commit terrible acts. Mental illness does not and should not necessarily excuse atrocious behavior (though the insanity defense does exist ...) -- but it certainly could help explain it. As I watched the Cho video, I couldn't help but think, "I'm watching a terribly ill young man." I also thought, "But this is what mental illness looks like, and people need to see it. Maybe, just maybe, these disturbing images will be put into a context that spawns some genuinely useful dialogue in this nation."

(Point of self-disclosure: I'm married to a psychiatrist. Mental illness is a subject about which I care deeply -- and a subject the media generally fail to cover well in large part because our country generally doesn't know how to have honest and productive discussion about mental illness and its treatment.)

3. I spoke Friday to high school students in Louisville, Ky. A victim of the VT shootings was from that city. A student told me about how a Louisville family he knows received dozens of calls from journalists around the world seeking information about the victim. "It's not like they were the news," the student said. "Why drag them into this, too? And why did so many reporters need to talk to them?" He and his classmates agreed with TextualDeviance: the media should consider pooling resources to gather information. What do you think of that idea?

4. Who is a journalist? We need to be careful about terms such as "legitimate media outlet." Legitimized by whom? And what does "legitimate" look like? That, too, is another discussion ...

Good job on the bulletin that just went out, re media guidelines and mass shootings, etc.

This is an area in which I have considerable scholarship and reporting experience. I have spent many years writing about mental health, the suicidal young, how schools handle (and mishandle) such tragedies.  It's also the subject of my next book (manuscript almost done!)  You should see a recent op-ed piece by me in the Wash Post. And Universal Press this week distributed a packet of my pieces on all of this (some details pasted below).

There has long been confusion and misunderstanding in the media, I believe, about how to cover these stories -- and especially about how to deal with the issue of suicide. Some of the guidelines that are distributed to the media on this (often by well-meaning mental health experts) are off the mark. What suffers in the process is the public's understanding of mental illness and the real needs of mentally ill and suicidal kids (and their families). I've heard more than a few news editors swear that it's "dangerous" to write about the life of any young person who takes his/her own life.  Myths about contagion and copycat suicide, etc. These myths then percolate out into the general public. The beat goes on.

The issue isn't lack of compassion. (well, at least most of the time). There's a fine line between sensitivity and having one's journalist head in the sand. More often than not, Christine, the issue is the failure of our profession to do its own research and homework on what is a major public health issue.

Might be a good panel for an SPJ meeting, eh?

The info distributed by Universal Press:

David Chartrand, an award-winning columnist and author who specializes in children and family issues, contributes two columns this week about the Virginia Tech shootings. Chartrand is the author of the upcoming book, "Angels in the Park," which examines an epidemic of teen suicides in his hometown during the 1990s and how communities and schools have dealt with mental illness and depression among children. Preview his two columns and the rest of the week's content at http://www.upsoneshots.com.