Hd All Tragedies
All the Time
Horrific as they have been, the recent spate of shootings in Atlanta, Chicago, Colorado and last week in Los Angeles have relatively little in common other than the fact that the perpetrators were twisted, angry men and that their actions were incessantly reported on television.
TV news, especially the 24-hour cable channels, are always on the lookout for the next big spectacle the impeachment of President Clinton, the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr.’s private plane, and, of course, the aforementioned shootings.
By now, the programming model has become predictable: the first frantic wire-service reports, followed by overhead helicopter coverage and phone interviews with eyewitnesses or official spokesmen, and then the field reporters to fill us in (or as is often the case, merely fill in).
Later, there will be special one-hour reports that recapitulate what has been said all day only with fancier graphics and mood music in the background and finally, the evening talk shows that dredge up the usual talking heads who say all the predictable things. On the night of the Granada Hills incident, Larry King reached new depths when he queried talk show host Leeza Gibbons about the meaning of it all.
It’s hard not to believe that in planning out their attacks, the shooters do not consider the prospect of such nationwide notoriety whether the motivation is political or just desperate.
The problem, of course, is in demonstrating such a cause-and-effect relationship (the number of such incidents is so low that it would be hard to develop a proven correlation). And even if it were possible, what could be done? From a constitutional standpoint, press coverage demands wide latitude, no matter how overblown or insensitive some of it turns out to be.
Besides, what plays out at an L.A. day care center or an Atlanta brokerage firm or even in the waters off Martha’s Vineyard hardly can be called gratuitous. These are legitimate news stories that capture the public’s attention and warrant extensive treatment in the print and electronic press.
Figuring out the point where “extensive” turns into “indecent” or “exploitative” is really the issue and it’s made all the more complicated by the economic realities of an all-news TV channel that relies on such grisly events to pump up the ratings. If you’re CNN, and your competitors MSNBC and Fox are providing wall-to-wall coverage of a story that’s attracting national attention, how anxious will you be to switch over to another topic even if there are no new developments in the story?
And putting aside matters of competition, there are editorial considerations at play. While the Granada Hills shootings might at first have appeared to be receiving undue national attention, the story took on a greater urgency when it became clear this was not just a random attack but a hate crime. In an age when satellites, cell phones and computers provide an instant window to news practically as it unfolds knowing where to draw the line becomes an hour-by-hour ordeal.
Even so, it seems worthwhile for TV news executives to consider ways in which major events get covered and whether safeguards are in order (much as with reporting that involves young children). It’s a slippery slope, to be sure, but it’s the responsible thing to do.
