Ethical Issues In Sandy Hook Shooting
The tragic incident that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14th, 2012 was indescribably devastating. The day after the shooting occurred, the Wall Street Journal covered the horrific event and stated “A man armed with two semiautomatic pistols killed 20 children at an elementary school Friday in a rampage that left 27 people dead and one injured in this suburban town before he took his own life, authorities said. A federal law-enforcement official said a .223 Bushmaster rifle was found in the back of a vehicle at the school.” Through the review of stories that were reported when the shooting first occurred, the discovery of new facts, and the aftermath of the shooting we can analyze the ethical boundaries that may have been crossed. We can then determine the journalism ethics that journalists need to follow
…show more content…
when covering a sensitive and traumatic breaking story.
First of all, media outlets were hasty in publicly naming the suspected shooter.
The major news networks, including CNN, CBS, FOX, and NBC initially wrongfully accused Ryan Lanza as the shooter. However, Business Insider later reported that Adam Lanza was carrying his brother’s ID on him, and Adam was then named the actual shooter. Media outlets also wrongfully reported that Ryan Lanza was dead. When the news broke about the Sandy Hook shooting, journalists rushed over to Newtown with the persistence of revealing the details of the event. There was also confusing information as to how many people were shot that day, most reports stated that 26 were killed, 20 children and six educators. Although, in actuality 27 people were killed by the gunman, since he shot his mother before going to the school. Yet, only a few reports included the gunman’s mother and said 27 people were killed. The majority of the errors made by the media may have been the result of the competition between news outlets. This is common, especially due to the early 24 hours news coverage, where multiple presumptions and misleading facts can
occur.
Unfortunately, the hasty rush to be the first news outlet to break the Sandy Hook story resulted in a lack of ethics. For example, reporters rushed to interview the elementary-age children who had witnessed the horrific shooting. The Huffington Post pleaded with reporters to “Stop interviewing children. It’s exploitative and it’s not journalism…Ethical standards change and get better over time. This is one area that needs some immediate attention.” In Ethics in Journalism, Smith states that “In many people’s minds, reporters are like foul vultures swooping around disasters and tragedies.” Smith also discusses how “It’s essential for journalists to understand the compassion that readers feel for distraught survivors is far greater than their desire to know relevant or irrelevant details.” When reporting, journalists must efficiently remember the difference between reporting and intruding, especially with a sensitive story that involves the lives of mourning families and loved ones. Smith explains that journalists need to recognize the “inevitable conflict between a community that is shocked by a tragedy and the reporters who are covering it. News coverage is intrusive, and grief demands privacy.”
Furthermore, there are necessary precautions that must be in place when approaching people who have endured a distressing event. Smith explains how trauma experts warn journalists:
Do not assume a person is ‘taking it well’ just because he or she does not appear to be affected by a tragic event. The person may be in shock or withdrawal, which may be helping the person to survive the unthinkable horror that has just occurred. Many are in a very delicate frame of mind. An expert in the psychology of trauma has cautioned that whenever a reporter meets a survivor of traumatic events, there is a chance that the journalist will witness – and may even precipitate – post traumatic stress disorder. That does not mean journalists should always back away. But it does mean that reporters must be sincerely compassionate.
Additionally, The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma contends that “Journalists who are sensitive to the suffering of others and understand the complexity of emotional trauma are often able to write about traumatic experiences in a way that is informative, engaging and often helpful to readers.”
The media did go too far, especially in regards to the children’s lives and privacy for the families. It wasn’t necessary for the reporters to interview the survivors of the shooting; especially right after the incident occurred. On December 19th 2012, five short days after the shooting, survivor Shari Thornberg was interviewed by Gary Stoller of USA Today. The interview with Thornberg gave a first-hand account of what happened inside the school. She said that “the school's teachers are traumatized, including some who are not ready to return to work and some who are questioning whether to resume their teaching careers.” She herself may have been traumatized, yet she still agreed to give the interview. I think journalists should have given the survivors further time to process and grieve what occurred before even attempting to interview the victims. In addition, the coverage of the victims’ funerals was not necessary. The funerals should have remained a private time for the families to mourn their loved ones, away from the shadow of the media. On December 17th 2012, three days after the shooting, NBC News reported on the funerals and included full length footage of the vigil; the story was titled 'We're broken': Newtown begins burying its littlest victims. The private funerals did not need to be covered, however, I do think it was acceptable for the vigil to be released since the President was present. There has also been further detailed coverage of those whose lives have been lost, including a short film called “What They Left Behind” which chronicles the stories of three children who died in the shooting.
Moreover, there is a definite balance that needs to be established when covering an intense public story such as the Sandy Hook shooting. On one hand, there is a desire to beat the competition, and on the other hand, there is the ethical requirement to respect the privacy of the families who have experienced an unimaginable tragedy. I do believe that the media outlets went too far in regards of respecting the victims’ lives and their families. Were the interviews with the children, staff members, and parents necessary? I do not think they were necessary, nor did they need to become public knowledge. Also, due to the young ages of the victims, should the victims’ names been released, especially due to their young ages? If I were asked to cover the events of the Sandy Hook shooting, I would not have been so hasty to cover survivor interviews and funeral coverage. I would attempt to discover the facts of the story, and would want to respectfully honor the lives lost by not pursuing in-depth first-hand accounts. Personal accounts may have been appropriate to conduct months after the shooting, but I would not want to bother those grieving and in shock just days after the shooting. I would need to decide how necessary and important the coverage was to the public, which aspects did the public absolutely need to be aware of and which details were not completely necessary to report. Since the suspect, Adam Lanza, was already pronounced guilty and had committed suicide at the scene; the news coverage was not necessary in order to find the person responsible for the heinous crime. I would want to limit my interaction with the grieving families to deal with the hassle of the media, thus, I would want to keep the story as respectful and minimalistic as possible. I would try to cover the story without interviewing family members or those who survived the shooting. Due to the age and fragility of the children, I would not want to interview or even speak about the incident with the children. Interviewing the children may not only create further trauma, children can also be unreliable eyewitnesses which could create further misleading information. In a Huffington Post article, ran on the day of the shooting, Bruce Shapiro, the executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma said, “Simply having a child for the sake of having a child on camera does nothing to advance the story. Interviewing a small child whose understanding of death itself is limited, never mind who is confused and scared, can only contribute to the public's misunderstanding and contribute to the real trauma of the child.” For that reason, I would not want to force any interviews upon those either at the shooting or the families of the victims. However, if any adult survivors chose to speak out about the horrific day I may decide to cover it; although I would be extremely hesitant and careful in the questions I ask.
Now, two years later, there has been new coverage about the lasting impact that the community has experienced since Sandy Hook occurred and how Newtown has dealt with their loss. There are interviews with the parents who lost their children, the majority of the articles report on how parents have found hope in the midst of despair. For example, ABC produced interviews with parents who talk about how they have found hope in charity work dedicated to their children, such as: “Race for Chase”. In a Gateway Journalism Review article, Eilees Brynes states how “Newtown also could have been a jumping-off point for a change in media coverage, but there was no leadership, whether it be on a national level or in academia, questioning how things could be better in the coverage of other tragedies.” The competition of other media outlets would to some degree drive the aggressiveness of my reporting however, I would strive to report the Sandy Hook shooting with a respectful approach. Overall, if I was to report on Sandy Hook, I would be against interviewing the children who survived the shooting, nor would I want to interview the families who lost their loved ones. I would possibly interview the families once a few months have passed, and once they have had time to process and grieve. I would also not cover the private funerals, since it should be kept sacred and does not need to be captured for the general public. Yes, due to the First Amendment, media outlets have the freedom to report such tragedies as Sandy Hook, however journalists need to remain ethically respectful to the survivors and the deceased victims’ families. Thus, journalists must thoroughly uphold a level of respect and discretion as they investigate and report sensitive breaking news stories.
when covering a sensitive and traumatic breaking story.
First of all, media outlets were hasty in publicly naming the suspected shooter.
The major news networks, including CNN, CBS, FOX, and NBC initially wrongfully accused Ryan Lanza as the shooter. However, Business Insider later reported that Adam Lanza was carrying his brother’s ID on him, and Adam was then named the actual shooter. Media outlets also wrongfully reported that Ryan Lanza was dead. When the news broke about the Sandy Hook shooting, journalists rushed over to Newtown with the persistence of revealing the details of the event. There was also confusing information as to how many people were shot that day, most reports stated that 26 were killed, 20 children and six educators. Although, in actuality 27 people were killed by the gunman, since he shot his mother before going to the school. Yet, only a few reports included the gunman’s mother and said 27 people were killed. The majority of the errors made by the media may have been the result of the competition between news outlets. This is common, especially due to the early 24 hours news coverage, where multiple presumptions and misleading facts can
occur.
Unfortunately, the hasty rush to be the first news outlet to break the Sandy Hook story resulted in a lack of ethics. For example, reporters rushed to interview the elementary-age children who had witnessed the horrific shooting. The Huffington Post pleaded with reporters to “Stop interviewing children. It’s exploitative and it’s not journalism…Ethical standards change and get better over time. This is one area that needs some immediate attention.” In Ethics in Journalism, Smith states that “In many people’s minds, reporters are like foul vultures swooping around disasters and tragedies.” Smith also discusses how “It’s essential for journalists to understand the compassion that readers feel for distraught survivors is far greater than their desire to know relevant or irrelevant details.” When reporting, journalists must efficiently remember the difference between reporting and intruding, especially with a sensitive story that involves the lives of mourning families and loved ones. Smith explains that journalists need to recognize the “inevitable conflict between a community that is shocked by a tragedy and the reporters who are covering it. News coverage is intrusive, and grief demands privacy.”
Furthermore, there are necessary precautions that must be in place when approaching people who have endured a distressing event. Smith explains how trauma experts warn journalists:
Do not assume a person is ‘taking it well’ just because he or she does not appear to be affected by a tragic event. The person may be in shock or withdrawal, which may be helping the person to survive the unthinkable horror that has just occurred. Many are in a very delicate frame of mind. An expert in the psychology of trauma has cautioned that whenever a reporter meets a survivor of traumatic events, there is a chance that the journalist will witness – and may even precipitate – post traumatic stress disorder. That does not mean journalists should always back away. But it does mean that reporters must be sincerely compassionate.
Additionally, The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma contends that “Journalists who are sensitive to the suffering of others and understand the complexity of emotional trauma are often able to write about traumatic experiences in a way that is informative, engaging and often helpful to readers.”
The media did go too far, especially in regards to the children’s lives and privacy for the families. It wasn’t necessary for the reporters to interview the survivors of the shooting; especially right after the incident occurred. On December 19th 2012, five short days after the shooting, survivor Shari Thornberg was interviewed by Gary Stoller of USA Today. The interview with Thornberg gave a first-hand account of what happened inside the school. She said that “the school's teachers are traumatized, including some who are not ready to return to work and some who are questioning whether to resume their teaching careers.” She herself may have been traumatized, yet she still agreed to give the interview. I think journalists should have given the survivors further time to process and grieve what occurred before even attempting to interview the victims. In addition, the coverage of the victims’ funerals was not necessary. The funerals should have remained a private time for the families to mourn their loved ones, away from the shadow of the media. On December 17th 2012, three days after the shooting, NBC News reported on the funerals and included full length footage of the vigil; the story was titled 'We're broken': Newtown begins burying its littlest victims. The private funerals did not need to be covered, however, I do think it was acceptable for the vigil to be released since the President was present. There has also been further detailed coverage of those whose lives have been lost, including a short film called “What They Left Behind” which chronicles the stories of three children who died in the shooting.
Moreover, there is a definite balance that needs to be established when covering an intense public story such as the Sandy Hook shooting. On one hand, there is a desire to beat the competition, and on the other hand, there is the ethical requirement to respect the privacy of the families who have experienced an unimaginable tragedy. I do believe that the media outlets went too far in regards of respecting the victims’ lives and their families. Were the interviews with the children, staff members, and parents necessary? I do not think they were necessary, nor did they need to become public knowledge. Also, due to the young ages of the victims, should the victims’ names been released, especially due to their young ages? If I were asked to cover the events of the Sandy Hook shooting, I would not have been so hasty to cover survivor interviews and funeral coverage. I would attempt to discover the facts of the story, and would want to respectfully honor the lives lost by not pursuing in-depth first-hand accounts. Personal accounts may have been appropriate to conduct months after the shooting, but I would not want to bother those grieving and in shock just days after the shooting. I would need to decide how necessary and important the coverage was to the public, which aspects did the public absolutely need to be aware of and which details were not completely necessary to report. Since the suspect, Adam Lanza, was already pronounced guilty and had committed suicide at the scene; the news coverage was not necessary in order to find the person responsible for the heinous crime. I would want to limit my interaction with the grieving families to deal with the hassle of the media, thus, I would want to keep the story as respectful and minimalistic as possible. I would try to cover the story without interviewing family members or those who survived the shooting. Due to the age and fragility of the children, I would not want to interview or even speak about the incident with the children. Interviewing the children may not only create further trauma, children can also be unreliable eyewitnesses which could create further misleading information. In a Huffington Post article, ran on the day of the shooting, Bruce Shapiro, the executive director of the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma said, “Simply having a child for the sake of having a child on camera does nothing to advance the story. Interviewing a small child whose understanding of death itself is limited, never mind who is confused and scared, can only contribute to the public's misunderstanding and contribute to the real trauma of the child.” For that reason, I would not want to force any interviews upon those either at the shooting or the families of the victims. However, if any adult survivors chose to speak out about the horrific day I may decide to cover it; although I would be extremely hesitant and careful in the questions I ask.
Now, two years later, there has been new coverage about the lasting impact that the community has experienced since Sandy Hook occurred and how Newtown has dealt with their loss. There are interviews with the parents who lost their children, the majority of the articles report on how parents have found hope in the midst of despair. For example, ABC produced interviews with parents who talk about how they have found hope in charity work dedicated to their children, such as: “Race for Chase”. In a Gateway Journalism Review article, Eilees Brynes states how “Newtown also could have been a jumping-off point for a change in media coverage, but there was no leadership, whether it be on a national level or in academia, questioning how things could be better in the coverage of other tragedies.” The competition of other media outlets would to some degree drive the aggressiveness of my reporting however, I would strive to report the Sandy Hook shooting with a respectful approach. Overall, if I was to report on Sandy Hook, I would be against interviewing the children who survived the shooting, nor would I want to interview the families who lost their loved ones. I would possibly interview the families once a few months have passed, and once they have had time to process and grieve. I would also not cover the private funerals, since it should be kept sacred and does not need to be captured for the general public. Yes, due to the First Amendment, media outlets have the freedom to report such tragedies as Sandy Hook, however journalists need to remain ethically respectful to the survivors and the deceased victims’ families. Thus, journalists must thoroughly uphold a level of respect and discretion as they investigate and report sensitive breaking news stories.