RetroCirq 148 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 The delemma solves itself. TV is a business, thus to look like "we care" we do not show the video on air. But if you want to see the video you can go to our website and clicky-click away! Most stations that did it this was will be reporting the highest number of unique clicks ever. That of course is a sad course of information, but what can you do? Censor the video online? My problem is with the Post and DN showing it front and center! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eat News 4738 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 The overseas press showed all the video with no discussion. The videos are news. Now it's completely up to the station or website to decide. With millions of media sites out there, it's really a non-discussion in my mind. You really can't censor something already out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Does it really help to show something like that to a prospective audience of all ages? Would that be something you'd want your child to see? I don't want children to see images of the 9/11 attacks, or hostages in jump-suits with knives at their throats, or the 'napalm girl' running down the street - but it's news. It should be on the front page. As for children, they should not be watching TV news or roaming the net. In the past, I would have let children do so, but those media are now much more of a minefield for children than they were before. The delemma solves itself. TV is a business, thus to look like "we care" we do not show the video on air. But if you want to see the video you can go to our website and clicky-click away! Most stations that did it this was will be reporting the highest number of unique clicks ever. And yet in trying to "look like they care", they are showing that they don't care. Really caring would involve actually reporting the news - showing your audience the truth of what happened. And yes, there are limits of what is acceptable to broadcast and a line that can be crossed - as I said, in my mind, showing certain frames of that shooter video do not cross the line. On the other hand, "refraining" from showing the video just seems to me to have an air of white-washing the truth, making it easy-to-digest, hiding some of the real story (which is that your society now has socially-disaffected, desensitized, racist-charged maniacs filming and broadcasting their own murders with Go-Pro cameras. ABC, NBC and all the others deliberately not showing the video are too scared to touch that part of the story.) My point exactly. Fox2's argument reflects the fact that they, alongside Piers M, want to politicize this as an attempt to prove a point about gun control. Myron, thanks for being honest. Well, not really. It's simply about reporting the news. You could equally say that not showing the video is an attempt to prove a point about gun control. You can politicise the images any way you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCirq 148 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 There's the problem. If you show things for what it is, it causes more of the same...if not worse. Look at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc. You think its a coincidence? It may be news to you fox2, but as a person with at least a sense of ethics, enough is enough. And yet in trying to "look like they care", they are showing that they don't care. Really caring would involve actually reporting the news And giving into the publicity of those who want attention? Is that what you want fox2? - On the other hand, "refraining" from showing the video just seems to me to have an air of white-washing the truth, making it easy-to-digest, hiding some of the real story (which is that your society now has socially-disaffected, racist-charged maniacs filming and broadcasting their own murders with Go-Pro cameras. ABC, NBC and all the others deliberately not showing the video are too scared to touch that part of the story.) If it's to protect ourselves from watching the world burn, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 There's the problem. If you show things for what it is, it causes more of the same...if not worse. Look at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, etc. You think its a coincidence? It may be news to you fox2, but as a person with at least a sense of ethics, enough is enough. OK.. a few things. The media is not the one causing this. The news media are way down the list of things to blame. As for 'ethics', I said in a previous post that I think the true ethical thing to do is to show the truth. And giving into the publicity of those who want attention? Is that what you want fox2? Inherent news value outweighs the intentions of the perpetrator, in my opinion. What he wants is irrelevant - it's news. If it's to protect ourselves from watching the world burn, so be it. Reporters' job is not to protect people. The first step to solving the problem is to be informed about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 You also have a lot of work to do to solve this issue judging by the number of people who believe this is a hoax. I don't get how stupid you have to be to believe, with all your heart, that this is a hoax and Sandy Hook was a hoax, and so on. (Yes, it's a hoax to take the guns off the American people [sarcasm].) And you guys wonder why I am for the publishing of the shooter video? You have too many lunatics, too many conspiracy theorists, too many nutjobs on the radio, too many dumb people - and too many drugs f*%$ing them up - and they just lap it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Block 1490 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 fox2, I think you should read Poynter's article about this. I've included a good snippet below. While I do think showing graphic video is necessary in certain stories, this isn't one of them, or at least at this point now that it's very clear what took place. Just because video shows "it happened" and that the video is real doesn't mean it necessarily advances the story. There's lots of gruesome stuff journalists see or record everyday that doesn't make it to air, and for good reason and editorial judgement. If our only criterion for reporting was "it happened, therefore it's news," then every news website in the world would probably resemble something more like Best Gore or World Start Hip Hop. And I don't buy that a mass amount of people think that this (or a lot of other news stories) is a hoax. The most vocal people online are the crazies, and time and time again, the internet can prove itself to be a really inaccurate metric of public opinion and intelligence. http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/368905/should-you-use-the-video-and-the-fax-from-the-wdbj-shooting-that-depends/ The shooter, Vester Flanagan, recorded his own actions and posted the video on social media while on the run from police. That video is, once again, news because it is evidence. Why air it? The extremely graphic video is a firsthand account of what happened. It shows how close the shooter stood while the crew was on the air. He pointed the semi-automatic pistol at Parker while she continued the interview. He backed off for a few seconds, then raised the weapon again and began firing point-blank. And it is too graphic to use. Journalists can be justified in airing or publishing graphic images when the images resolve disputes about what occurred. In shootings involving police, for example, when there is a question about the justifiable use of force, video, even graphic video, can clear or indict the shooter. There has to be a journalistic purpose to justify the graphic image’s use. Other than the astonishing nature of the video, it adds little information about what happened. The facts are clear without using it. There was a lone shooter at close range, and his image appeared on the news camera video. The first-person video shows an execution. Airing it may serve to encourage copycat violence. The shooter may have meant to show the video as a way of punishing and humiliating his victims. It might have given him a great sense of power to be in control, and airing the video only feeds that emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 I read that and I accept you have a different point of view. I share the view of the editors of the CBS Evening News and ABC's 20/20 in showing some of the shooter's video. By the way, as I said, yes, there is a line, and I'm not advocating the kind of gore that you mention. But I mentioned - in my first post - several ways that the video "advances the story", as you put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCirq 148 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 So by showing it like it is, it is to keep people like Alex Jones, Infowars, and Right wing talk radio from claiming this is part of the plan to create a new world order. To reiterate Charles' post, there are trolls, namely on the conservative side that tries to debunk things, but that does not mean the news should equate to snuff. Therefore fox2, lets just agree to disagree. And I yield my time. You also have a lot of work to do to solve this issue judging by the number of people who believe this is a hoax. I don't get how stupid you have to be to believe, with all your heart, that this is a hoax and Sandy Hook was a hoax, and so on. (Yes, it's a hoax to take the guns off the American people [sarcasm].) And you guys wonder why I am for the publishing of the shooter video? You have too many lunatics, too many conspiracy theorists, too many nutjobs on the radio, too many dumb people - and too many drugs f*%$ing them up - and they just lap it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastchance79905 1 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 So by showing it like it is, it is to keep people like Alex Jones, Infowars, and Right wing talk radio from claiming this is part of the plan to create a new world order. Too late for that. I've seen everything from she's missing a leg in the shot when she was trying to run away to "How did they not hear him coming" to a supposed lie about the timestamp to "why aren't there any shell casings dropping?" and of course the Illuminati, Jesuits, NWO, Obama, and David Icke's lizard people The YouTube "patriots" jumped all over this one and claimed hoax before the bodies were even room temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAVY 10 Fan 232 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Safe to say with conspiracy theories; actions like that undertaken by the Virginia State Police don't help matters. http://hamptonroads.com/2015/08/virginia-state-police-trooper-ordered-bbc-reporter-delete-video-vester-flanagan-crash-scene#_ga=1.137214832.1394060422.1440864264 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCirq 148 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Safe to say with conspiracy theories; actions like that undertaken by the Virginia State Police don't help matters. http://hamptonroads.com/2015/08/virginia-state-police-trooper-ordered-bbc-reporter-delete-video-vester-flanagan-crash-scene#_ga=1.137214832.1394060422.1440864264 That's true. More ammo for the aluminum foil news teams, but still does not justify showing it as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 The whole hoax thing is way down my list of reasons to broadcast the video - I only just mentioned it in one of my last posts. I think a lot of the "hoax community" is just in it for the money. Does Alex Jones believe what he says? No - he's a businessman in it for the money.. and a moron who doesn't understand how the media works. In one video on the shooting this week, he said this story will dominate the media cycle for "weeks" now - you all here know that this is a few-day story. He just makes stuff up. As for the people claiming it's a hoax to further gun control, that the people affected in the story are "crisis actors" and the people demonizing the victims' loved ones, they are just beneath contempt.. sub-human. Some of them would be in the below-stupid category and believe what they are saying - others are just in it for the money or are simply cruel. As for gun control, those "defending" the status quo - such as by saying this is a conspiracy to take our guns, that they are the true patriots, that "there is no problem with guns" or that "people kill people, guns don't kill people" - are actually the least patriotic Americans. They are the ones happy to sit by - on their watch - while other Americans, including pre-schoolers, are slaughtered like animals with guns day after day. They don't care about America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RetroCirq 148 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Fox2, You and I are different. I won't speak for Alex Jones or the "hoax community". In the end, this tragedy is a reminder that life is short. We must learn to love each other. Personally, as passionate as I am about ethics in journalism, I will agree to disagree. I will leave you with this..... The whole hoax thing is way down my list of reasons to broadcast the video - I only just mentioned it in one of my last posts. I think a lot of the "hoax community" is just in it for the money. Does Alex Jones believe what he says? No - he's a businessman in it for the money.. and a moron who doesn't understand how the media works. In one video on the shooting this week, he said this story will dominate the media cycle for "weeks" now - you all here know that this is a few-day story. He just makes stuff up. As for the people claiming it's a hoax to further gun control, that the people affected in the story are "crisis actors" and the people demonizing the victims' loved ones, they are just beneath contempt.. sub-human. Some of them would be in the below-stupid category and believe what they are saying - others are just in it for the money or are simply cruel. As for gun control, those "defending" the status quo - such as by saying this is a conspiracy to take our guns, that they are the true patriots, that "there is no problem with guns" or that "people kill people, guns don't kill people" - are actually the least patriotic Americans. They are the ones happy to sit by - on their watch - while other Americans, including pre-schoolers, are slaughtered like animals with guns day after day. They don't care about America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRolyPoly 1847 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Eventually, I think what Alison and Adam wanted was for all of us to move on from this tragedy. Eventually, we will stop talking about this and will continue to remember them in peace. We love you, Alison and Adam. - @WDBJ7 and everyone else, including myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundershock MN 169 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 So, I thought about coming here on Wednesday evening and posting my thoughts. Well, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. The "A block" around here was a major gut punch Wednesday. Between this story and the local story of the day, a construction worker being fatally injured at the new Vikings stadium, it was too much. It was one of those days where all I wanted to do was go home and just sit with my wife and two young daughters. Then Thursday and Friday came and went. I tried to sit down yesterday and compose a rational thought and realized I'm trying to make sense out of the senseless. But, I truly hope that the family, friends and co-workers of Alison Parker and Adam Ward are able to find eventually find some peace. With that said it is terrifying to me that this could have been anyone...our friends, our family members or myself. No matter what we do everyday we interact with other members of the world and some of them hurting emotionally or psychologically and to some of them violence can seem like a good idea. But, events like Wednesday's shooting are sadly becoming all to frequent in our society. It really bugs me when my 2 and a half year old daughter needs to go through "active shooter"/"lockdown" drills at her day care/school. Now, in fairness they refer to them as "stranger" drills or something to that affect with the children. But, we have seemingly accepted this as status quo in our country now and that is troubling. Are we as a society really saying that Alison Parker, Adam Ward, the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook (and the list sadly goes on and on) are just some sort of "collateral damage" in order to protect the status quo? We need to do better and we can do better. It's way beyond the time to have a open honest conversation about both mental health and guns in this country. No, I'm not saying we need to take away everybody's guns or commit every person with the slightest form of mental illness. And, I understand like most people that no amount of legislation or psychiatric help is going to stop every crazy person...sadly, there is some evil in this world that just can't be stopped. But, that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't try. This is a real issue in this country and it's happening all over our great land. This doesn't happen to "other people" it happens to "people"...our co-workers, our neighbors, our friends and our families. We need to do a better job as a society protecting each other and making sure people that need help get it. We owe it to Alison, Adam and the all the other victims of these heinous acts of violence...And, quite frankly we owe it to each other as we are all in this together. I agree with The Daily News' decision to show the shooter's POV: 1) Those images are news - on many levels - it's shooter P.O.V., it's caught on video, he used a Go-Pro, he broadcast it online... all of that is news. They speak to the depravity of our society and the deep problems at its core. News outlets should show them because their truly shocking nature may effect change on some level that is desperately needed. Personally, this is about the only reason right now I could possibly see for using this imagery. However, that wasn’t the context in which they were using the imagery. They were clearly going for the "shock" factor. And, I’m still not 100% sure I’d use it. This nutcase created this POV video because he wanted to tell the story his way. By using his imagery you are allowing him to control the narrative which is exactly what he wanted. 2) In terms of whether the image is too gory or tasteless to broadcast - I believe it is close to the line but not over the line - mainly, in my opinion, because the frames do not show the actual murder - my speculation. Sadly, I think this will eventually be another case study for future journalism students, like Budd Dwyer’s suicide is/was. And, it’s partially why I won’t say you are 100% wrong in your view. Everyone is going to have a different view on how close to (or, over) “the line” it is...especially when you start to factor in showing only stills or portions of such imagery. 3) In terms of sinking to 'new levels of classnessness' or 'having no respect' (as people write here) - for me, the Daily News has more respect for the truth and for showing the horror of what actually happened. You might argue that "no, they did this for sales and nothing else", but that's irrelevant. News - unless it's for PBS or some such outlet - is inseparably linked to the profit motive. They clearly did this for the shock factor. Personally, I don’t even feel like they were trying to editorialize or offer a visual commentary as your first point alludes to. They could have done that in combination with the headline used or, offered up some sort of comment stating that is what they were trying to do. Best as I can tell they did neither. They did it in my mind because they knew it would cause an uproar and in turn draw attention to their paper. 4) I think it is wrong for people to criticize the Daily News and others for showing the shooter POV when countless news outlets over the years - including WDBJ - have broadcast highly powerful, tragic and sensitive material precisely because it is news. In a 'Polyanna'-type world, newspapers would only show nice photo-montages of people's lives on their front pages. In the real world, news is neither nice nor respectful. And when it comes to world-changing journalism, it is often the most startling, graphic, confronting images that shake the world's consciousness - think the picture of the naked little girl in Vietnam. Instead of blaming the newspaper, people should direct their ire toward the lax gun laws and the violent, divided, 'broken' society in which this occurred. To the poster who wrote that this is about mental illness at its core - yes, you are right.. partly. But it goes far beyond that. This is about a violent, dis-functional, so-called 'society' in which it is now common for members of society to go around killing each other. That is not normal - other places have mental illness - and guns too - but not the extreme levels of violence. While I agree that the news media has shown disturbing images over the years. This is almost in a class to itself...it really is a snuff film. It’s “news” that he made the video and posted it to social media...the video itself isn’t “news.” Had this psychopath not posted his video to social media the images likely would have never seen the light of day. If it was never posted to social media would news outlets have been able to report on the existence of the video without the actual images? Just because it’s out in the public domain doesn’t mean it has to be used. Do I really need to see the crime scene photos to know what happened at Sandy Hook? I think the media was able to report exactly what happened that day without the use of such imagery. It would add nothing to the story. And, thankfully the Connecticut Legislature agreed creating an exemption under the State’s Freedom of Information Act. As to your final paragraph sadly I couldn’t agree more. One really frightening thing to me is that had this psychopath ambushed them while they were loading up their news van I’m not sure that this story would have gotten the amount of press that it has. These types shootings are happening so often in this country that had that happened instead it likely would have been reported and brushed aside by the public as “just another shooting”. Sadly, I think the fact that this happened on live tv (and that the shooter recorded and posted video) is what made this the top story and front page news...and that is downright frightening. And yet in trying to "look like they care", they are showing that they don't care. Really caring would involve actually reporting the news - showing your audience the truth of what happened. And yes, there are limits of what is acceptable to broadcast and a line that can be crossed - as I said, in my mind, showing certain frames of that shooter video do not cross the line. On the other hand, "refraining" from showing the video just seems to me to have an air of white-washing the truth, making it easy-to-digest, hiding some of the real story (which is that your society now has socially-disaffected, desensitized, racist-charged maniacs filming and broadcasting their own murders with Go-Pro cameras. ABC, NBC and all the others deliberately not showing the video are too scared to touch that part of the story.) I don’t think anyone white-washed anything. As I stated up above you can report on the existence of the video (and it’s posting) to social media without using it. And, I think plenty of media outlets did a fine job reporting the whole story and conveying the heinousness of what happened without using the video. Personally, I wouldn’t have used the imagery. But, I’m not going say you’re wrong. I understand your position even if I don’t totally agree with it. Unfortunately, one thing I think we can both agree on is that I really wish Wednesday events didn’t happen rendering such a debate moot. http://www.11alive.com/story/news/2015/08/27/he--not-one--us/32462265/ ATLANTA -- Reporter Jaye Watson wrote a blog about the murder of Roanoke reporter Alison Parker and photojournalist Adam Ward. Watson's blog, which has gone viral, boldly emphasizes the killer 'was not one of us.' That was a wonderful piece. Thanks for sharing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I should have probably said "sanitized" instead of "white-washed". I would argue that the video itself is news. But anyway, I've made my points. Good post - well said. By the way, for what it's worth, as some here know, I'm not American. But that doesn't mean I don't care a lot about this issue. I can also offer a view with the benefit of looking from outside, and from a great distance, in more ways than one. Also for what it's worth, I can sense, even in this thread - and reading between the lines - that there is a huge reluctance to have that "open conversation" that you are talking about, Thundershock. Beyond mental illness and gun control, I honestly think that this comes down to the issue of unity - a United States that is truly 'united' will fix this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhratbrat 423 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 http://www.schurz.com/2015/08/standing-in-solidarity/ Schurz Communications posted this on there website and also a way to donate to the fund for Alison and Adam. Also, for this Saturday's game against Ohio State, Virginia Tech University (from nearby Blacksburg) has put stickers on the back of their helmets for WDBJ (with Adam and Alison's Initials) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking News 805 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I was num about how the whole story unfolded and my heart goes out to both victims families. Their personal and work families. What brought comfort was how many people from the competition and stations from afar came in and helped out. That so awesome to hear that where competition is fighting for eyeballs. We don't hear much about Schurz and I don't know alot about them but they seem & sound like a very solid company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhratbrat 423 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 NBC12 Richmond Meterologist Andrew Freiden (WDBJ Alumni) will be filling in for the weather staff for the next couple of days so that the weather team at WDBJ can attend the funeral services. This with Keith Humphrey (Retired Anchor for the station) filling in to help out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 NBC12 Richmond Meterologist Andrew Freiden (WDBJ Alumni) will be filling in for the weather staff for the next couple of days so that the weather team at WDBJ can attend the funeral services. This with Keith Humphrey (Retired Anchor for the station) filling in to help out as well. That is a great move between Raycom and Schurz for that agreement, since they are likely having to rely on outside staff and Schurz probably didn't have a spare meteorologist at its sister stations. Although as a WDBJ alum, I would have thought he would have gone to the funerals as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fox2 190 Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Couple of things. I am really impressed by the staff at WDBJ. I have been awed by their professionalism and their dignity through this event. In particular, the morning team - Kim McBroom and Leo Hirsbrunner - and staff overall seem to be very real, authentic and sort of un-'starlike' - without the usual egos, very natural and down-to-earth. Second - about gun control - I am 1000% behind Andy Parker and his efforts. But, as far as I can see, the idea of "stopping the crazy people from getting guns" is just not a realistic thing to try and achieve. I don't see how you are going to be able to make that happen, and without much more far-reaching changes in legislation and the national consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.