Welcome to SPJ Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Was use of video proper?

Here's what Ethics Committee member Jerry Dunklee, a journalism professor at Southern Connecticut State University, said about NBC's use of the video made by the Virginia Tech gunman: "I told the 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."
Published Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:52 PM by AndySchotz

Comments

# re: Was use of video proper?

Tuesday, April 24, 2007 8:48 PM by christinetatum
Robert Buckman is an associate professor of communication at the University of Louisiana at Layfayette. He serves on SPJ's National Ethics Committee. He wrote:

This issue is vaguely reminiscent of the New York Times' decision to publish the Unabomber's manifesto a decade or so ago, which was roundly criticized on ethical grounds for providing that maniac with a forum for his perverted views. But the rationale then was that it was done to save lives because the Unabomber had threatened to strike again unless the manifesto was published.

The public safety issue does not apply here, however, as Cho was already dead. So the issue is purely one of how much does the public have the right to know?  

I side with Jerry Dunklee on this. The murder of 32 innocent students and professors is about as compelling a story as there is, short of a 9/11 or an Oklahoma City.

The issue as I see it--as a professor--is that this could have happened on any campus anywhere. It has heightened the issues of fruitcakes with homicidal grievances against the world having access to guns, how they can be identified and what actions need to be taken to prevent another such tragedy.

I remember the UT Tower shootings in 1966 (I was living in Texas), and we thought and hoped then that this was an isolated case that probably could never happen again. But it has--repeatedly.

If the VT massacre doesn't involve the public interest, what does?

I don't watch NBC so I didn't see its coverage, but if it is true that it ran an edited version that highlighted the most newsworthy elements, then I cannot fault NBC for the way it handled this thing.  It also turned the video over to the FBI, which was in the public interest and did not involve subpoenaing confidential information.

Let the print media and the Internet publish the full text if anyone wants to study it, and psychologists certainly will.
Anonymous comments are disabled. Please log in or create an account to comment on this article.