Media Ethics: The Case of Virginia Tech Gunmans Video - Literature review Example

Introduction Media ethics encompasses a system of “quality control There are generally three guiding principles and they are truth, freedom of expression and responsibility.2 The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics specifically requires journalists to “minimize harm” in news and other reporting to the public.3 Among the list of precautions required of journalists for the purpose of minimizing harm is the directive to “show compassion” for members of the public who might be impacted by the report.4 Journalists are also directed to “be sensitive” in the selection and publication of photographs and interviews and to “show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.”5 An even more important guideline for journalists suggests that before publishing any report a fair balance should be struck between the public’s right to know and the preservation of an individual’s right to privacy.6 Taking these ethical standards into consideration the discussion that follows examines the publication of the Virginia Tech shooter’s video by the news media. While it is possible to argue that the public’s right to know is more compelling than the shooter’s right to privacy, many argue that the release of the tape was irresponsible and insensitive and as such was unethical. The discussion that follows explores these arguments and determines that the publication was indeed no more than a business venture aimed at increasing ratings by pandering to lurid curiosity. As a result the publication of the video was grossly unethical. Its publication was reflective of irresponsible reporting characterized by insensitivity. Virginia Tech Gunman’s Video Following the Virginia Tech’s shooting in April 2007, NBC released video prepared by the gunman and allegedly mailed to NBC sometime between the two separate incidents of shooting. The first shooting took place at a Virginia Tech dormitory claiming two lives and the second shooting took place shortly after in a Virginia Tech class room claiming thirty lives.7 The video showed an animated Seung-Hui Cho, the young man identified as the architect of the Virginia Tech shootings.8 Still photos and video recordings depicted a severely disturbed young man consumed with hatred for what he deemed the rich and privileged. He railed that their: "…debaucheries … werent enough to fill your hedonistic needs… You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul, and torched my conscience."9 The video, obviously prepared in advance of the Virginia Tech shootings assigned blame to the victims and society as a whole. Cho lamented: "You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today. But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and you gave me only one option, but the decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."10 Perhaps more disturbing form the standpoint of criminal experts is Cho’s mention of the two students in the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 in Colorado. In that episode 12 students and a teacher were killed. Cho’s message seemed to be that victims bring about these tragic results. Cho’s hateful rendition was punctuated by his dress and demeanor. He wore black clothing, black gloves and a black cap turned backward on his head. On some occasions he posed with two handguns, on in each hand or with a single handgun aimed at the camera.11 Although his delivery was primarily colored by residual hatred, there were times he sounded world weary and resigned to his plot to commit mass murder. Cho practically sighs when he says: “This is it. This is where it all ends. End of the road. What a life it was. Some life.”12 Reaction to the NBC Video No one can seriously argue that the NBC footage of Cho’s tirade and justification of the Virginia Tech shootings were disturbing. It was particularly disturbing for members of the victims’ families and Virginia Tech as a whole. Steve Flaherty, Virginia State Superintendant recognizing the unpleasant consequences for exposing those directly and indirectly impacted by the tragedy to the lurid images contained in Cho’s video tape expressed his disappointment with NBC.13 While police close to the investigation asserted that the video did not add anything new to the information they already had, criminal profiler Pat Brown thought the video had some value for future investigative processes. He claims that the video clearly depicted a psychopath.14 Despite this division among law enforcement, the family and friends of victims of the Virginia Tech shootings were not divided. They expressed anger and disappointment claiming that the images only caused them to unnecessarily relive the shootings. In protest of the airings on NBC, friends and family members cancelled previously scheduled interviews with NBC.15 Ethical Considerations Tom Rosenstiel, Project for Excellence in Journalism director was of the opinion that NBC’s release of Cho’s video, while walking a fine line, did not encroach upon media ethics. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle on April 19, 2007, Rosenstiel said: "You have to find that line between serving the publics right to know and the obvious public interest in knowing and understanding as much as we can about this person and how such a thing can happen, and being exploited by his manipulation of you."16 Rosenstiel submitted that NBC had not crossed the line and that they had been as sensitive as they possibly could have been given the circumstances. He also noted that NBC had been careful in its presentation of the video by providing “cautionary prologue and analysis.”17 Jerry Ceppos, fellow in media ethics at Santa Clara University thought that NBC did not show enough of Cho’s video. He maintains that the media should share newsworthy material with the public even if it has the unpleasant consequences of “giving bad guys some publicity.” Ceppos goes on to say that: “I get uncomfortable when the media overthinks issues. In most cases, Id rather share the information with the public and let them decide. The journalist shouldnt be in the position of playing God and deciding what people need to see and what people dont need to see."18 Ceppos makes the further argument that the world is far too connected in the age of technological advancements to effectively censor the media. While it may be possible to exercise some measure of control in the print and broadcast media, there is no way to control the millions of internet releases and people’s general access to these venues. Ceppos says it is impossible to control what a million bloggers publicize via the internet.19 Executive Producer of Fox News Channel was of a similar opinion to that of Ceppos. He said that images like the ones released by NBC are bound to get out there in the public venue in any event. If the media had collectively made a decision not to publish Cho’s video tapes someone else was bound to do so and place the videos in the public domain.20 Matthew Karan offers a more logical explanation for why it might be impossible to call the release of the Virginia Tech gunman’s video unethical. According to Karan, judgment is passed on the release of certain material via the media based on a purely subjective view. People normally respond to reports and broadcasts based on their own prejudices. For example, one might reason that interest in death is “morally wrong” and it therefore follows that coverage of wars, crimes and tragedy in general is “ethically suspect.”21 Karan goes on to warn: “Taking such a view we ought to be very suspicious of those who claim to provide a framework for what constitutes ethical journalism and media practice, for such a framework can only be the schematic formalization of their own particular prejudices and preferences.”22 In order to properly assess media ethics, according to Karan, it is necessary to look past the material published and delve into broader considerations. Journalistic motives, the resulting harm and the journalist commitment to the truth are the determining factor. The underlying question is whether or not the journalist is acting responsibly.23 The broader question as posed by Bertrand is whether or not the media has a duty to act responsibly when they are no longer accountable.24 According to Bertrand, the media has evolved into an industry where their primary concern is their shareholders rather than public service and interests.25 Decisions to act responsibly have in recent years become compromised and this is the context in which the release of the Virginia Tech gunman’s video has fallen into disrepute. The media’s motive in Karan’s scenario cannot withstand scrutiny and as such, the release of the video is ethically challenged. As Karan explains the media has been credited with contributing much of the current ills of society as a whole. Karan states that: “And as media are often credited with immense power, they are often held responsible for all the ills of present-day society, by the Left and the Right, North and South, and by the powerful and the humble, by the young and by the old.”26 At the end of the day the “media produce effects.” 27While the media cannot dictate what a person thinks they can certainly dictate what persons think about.28In this sense the release of the Virginia Tech gunman’s video tape was unethical in that its release had no real concern for what people might make of it. Of particular concern to critics is the impact such a video tape might have on potential copy cats. Criminologist at Northeastern University, Boston, Jack Levin explained that: “The copy cat effect in school violence is alive and well, unfortunately, and it feeds on the attention that we give these school shootings."29 This particular statement takes on more significance when considers that Cho specifically alluded to the Columbine High School shootings. Obviously, when making the decision to release this video tape to the public, NBC did not take advice from criminologists and certainly gave no thought to the dire consequences of giving attention to school violence. As Brigitte Nacos, professor at Colombia University explains, there is a residual danger associated with giving media attention to persons like Cho. It has the capacity to encourage others similarly disposed to take similar action with similar devastating consequences. Nacos explained that Cho “is a criminal” and no doubt he “has watched how much publicity” people of similar aspirations have gotten for themselves.30 Psychology professor at Chicago’s Loyola University, James Garbarino made a similar observation. He explained that: "Theyre already suicidal, theyre already depressed, they have a grievance, and one of the attractive things about doing what he did is you resolve everything at once: You go out in a blaze of glory and make your statement. The risk of adding to this and providing validation to me ought to sort of trump the educational value of it."31 Although media experts such as Rosenstiel and Ceppos make valid observations relevant to the media’s responsibility with respect to freedom of information and expression, they largely ignore the broader picture. They do not take into account how financial interests of the media compromise ethics. At the end of the day the media, as committed as it has become to improving ratings which coincided with advertising dollars are more inclined to focus on shock value rather than public interests. From a business perspective, shock value draws viewers and viewers improve ratings which improve advertising incentives. In an article printed in the Boston Globe, Drake Bennet acknowledges that the news media commenced a shift in ethics in the nineties. The popular view has always been that sensationalism in the context of violence and voyeurism brought in the ratings. The focus has been on “speed and spectacle” rather than in-depth coverage. However, Drake reveals that a new study published earlier this year by the Project for Excellence in Journalism reveals that the masses are not following sensationalism as previously thought. Audiences are more interested in quality reporting.32 Political Science professor at Wellesley College, Marion Just opined that the shift in ethics demonstrated that: “…what governs most television new directors is the sense that they have no choice that they have to use crime, accidents, and disaster to grab the interest of the viewer.”33 The obvious difficulty with this mindset is that the news media is more focused on holding the interests of the public with a view to increasing ratings rather than focusing on what is in the public interests. This shift in priorities has led to the skewed ethics and results in the irresponsible publication of the material such as the Virginia Tech gunman’s video. According to the research conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism the news media has been misguided and have misjudged the viewers. As a result it seems possible to employ journalistic ethics and at the same time pander to the industry’s need to improve and sustain ratings. The results were revealed in a book titled We Interrupt This Newscast: How to Improve Local News and Win Ratings, Too. Results reflect that a majority of news personnel were fueled by perceptions that the public wanted to be visually assaulted, and were primarily drawn to “yellow tape and flashing lights.”34 The study also unveiled that this perception by the news media was fundamentally flawed. Rosenstiel and Just together with other researchers found that while crime stories did interest viewers and sustain that interest, it was no more effective than public policy stories, health, tax and educational issues. In fact the number one story line of interest to the public was on economic developments.35 Another interesting finding was that “what mattered more than topic was how it was treated.”36 Conclusion The results of the research published by the Project for Excellence in Journalism provide some hope that the face of journalism and the news media in journalism might reverse the shift toward sensationalism. There is hope that rather than focus on ratings and by extension profits the media can return to focus on ethics. Once this happens accusations and claims that the media is by and large responsible for most of the ills of society will fall by the wayside. These accusations are only possible when the media publishes material contrary to the public interests. It is impossible to accept that publication of the Virginia Tech gunman’s video did anything to advance or safeguard the public interests beyond pandering to a lurid curiosity. Tapes of that nature when aired in a public venue can only fuel and validate those persons sharing the gunman’s agenda. It therefore poses a threat to the public and serves no useful purpose. This is obviously contrary to media responsibility and the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics .The only hope is that more studies follow the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s efforts and the media is finally convinced that ethics trumps sensationalism. Works Cited Bertrand, Claude-Jean. Media Ethics and Accountability Systems. Transitions Publications, 2000 Cooper, Tim. “Comparative International Media Ethics.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 1999, Vol 5 No. 1, pp 3-14 Drake, Bennet. “News Flash: New Research Concludes that the Sensationalism Sweeping Local News is Bad for Ratings.” The Boston Globe, October 14, 2007 Garofoli, Joe. “Virginia Tech Massacre: New-media culture challenges limits of journalism ethics.” San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 2007 Karan, Matthew. Media Ethics: A Philosophical Approach. CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997 Ludden, Jennifer. (April, 19th, 2007) NBC Defends Release of Va. Tech Gunman Video. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9604204 Accessed November 2, 2007 Malone, Jim. (19th April, 2007) Virginia Tech Gunman Video Sparks Mixed Reaction. News V.A. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-04/2007-04-19-voa44.cfm Accessed November 2, 2007 Society of Professional Journalists. Code of Ethics. (n.d.) Available at: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp? Accessed November 2, 2007 Stannard, Matthew, B.” Virginia Tech Massacre Media Ethics: Tough Decisions on How Much to Show.” San Francisco Chronicle, April 19, 2007 YouTube. (n.d.) Virginia Tech shooting: excerpts of video message of gunman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rT8G8QvB2U Accessed November 2, 2007 Read More