Columbine, 1999; September 11, 2001; Madrid, 2004; London (“7/7”), 2005; Virginia Tech, 2007. These five events, amongst many others, were tragedies, not only for survivors directly involved but for whole societies fearful for the implications such events might have on their own lives. In such instances, the media not only informs the public about what happens on the day but is also central in shaping the trajectory of the dealing of the event afterwards.
This is a moment in time in which the shocking events of April 16 – the shooting of 32 people, and the wounding of many more, at the Virginia Tech campus by student Seung-Hui Cho, who then committed suicide – are still being processed by the public. This, the deadliest shooting of its kind in modern US history, was followed by an outpouring of grief and sympathy nationwide. If public trauma can be defined as “a collective stress that occurs when members of a social system fail to receive the expected conditions of life from their social system due to external or internal sources” (Barton, 1970), then Virginia Tech was certainly that.
In “What Makes a Tragedy Public?”, Doka analyses further the factors that influence how important particular events come to be to the public. Scope, the number of victims, relief workers, and loved ones involved, is important. Equally influential is how closely the public identifies with the event and victims. Mass cult suicides are shocking partly because those involved are often ordinary people psychologically ensnared in sinister organizations; anybody could have been in their place. The social value of the victims also influences public attention. Students are likely to rank above elderly because of the social value attached to youth. Wider consequences are key. September 11 was so traumatic, not only because of the numbers of victims but also because of the potential implications for the security of people's own lives. The duration of the event is a complex factor; an ongoing affair can enable resource mobilization and allow the public to feel a sense of control or it can lead to a sense of powerlessness and eventually apathy. Whether or not the event was intended, or was an accident, can invoke public wrath and prejudice against a group to which the causer(s) belonged, if intention was involved, or produce sympathy towards victims in the tragedy was unforeseen. Linked to intention is preventability. High expectedness, for instance, can cause public anger. Lastly, the nature of the victims' suffering may influence public grief. Comfort may be taken knowing that victims died instantly and painlessly, horror may arise out of a long and painful episode ending in death.
Through this prism, the reaction to the Virginia Tech shooting can be more clearly understood. For a crime of this nature, the number of victims was wide in scope; most who were shot were students whose youth carries a high social value; the public was shocked by the wider implications of the event and the idea that their children in education, or even themselves, might be at risk; the shooting was intended (between shootings, Seung-Hui Cho even mailed footage and photos of the killings to NBC) in a way chilling to mass audiences; and the unimaginable suffering on the day was also horrific to contemplate.
These factors were ones produced on the day of the massacre and were influences that any media outlet reporting the basic facts had little influence over. More control by the media over public perception, however, is possible in the period immediately afterwards. The media is key in relaying the significance of an event. The extent of coverage, the type of footage used, the witnesses and spokespeople and who they represent, and the issues raised are all important in how the public perceives and processes tragedy.
In the aftermath of Virginia Tech, the nature of the media's coverage this time has sparked debate about what is ethically acceptable to report in the aftermath of such an event. Proportional to the perceived importance of the event, the media has covered many elements that might otherwise have been left unreported. The family of Seung-Hui Cho was interviewed, his sister saying “Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us”. The mourning in Virginia was extensively covered. On April 20, the state of Virginia's observation of a day of mourning was reported. A moment of silence at noon was observed by students, staff, and visitors on campus, dressed in orange and maroon. Police investigations were detailed, specifically in relation to the disturbing behavior of the killer before the shootings and the attempts of the university faculty to encourage him to attend therapy. The names and stories of the victims were also detailed, providing an emotional connection to the human scale of the tragedy.
This detailed coverage was uncontroversial. Knowing the victims offered catharsis, the events of mourning enabled the public to share in the grief, police investigations enabled some closure and a sense of safety, and the killer's family's statements diffused potential animosity. All such stories were beneficial and a positive part of the media's role. More controversial, however, was the airing on April 18 of the “multimedia manifesto” sent to NBC by Seung-Hui Cho. Steve Capus, NBC news president, justified the release on the basis that the killer's motivation and mental condition were important facts for the public to know. But victims' families, police, and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) disagreed, the latter saying that such a release “seriously jeopardizes the public’s safety by potentially inciting 'copycat' suicides, homicides, and other incidents”.
The media regularly faces questions about whether to carry sensitive material, even if few instances are as dramatic as the Seung-Hui Cho multimedia manifesto example. Certainly, whether or not it is ethical to show the corpses of war victims has been an ongoing site of contention over the course of the Iraq war, with Al Jazeera television attracting significant criticism for showing such images. In few instances is it clear to discern motives on the part of outlets that carry difficult material. Such coverage can alarm and challenge viewers, awakening them to the reality and horror of a story and encouraging them to take it seriously and to ask important questions. Most commentators would agree that it is the role of the media to challenge and provoke. Agencies that seek to mute the shock of an event often do so for personal interests that conflict with the public's right to know.
But such worthy motives can be difficult to separate from the desire to make financial profit from attracting alarm, even if the public gains little from being shocked. Despite the many courtroom dramas following from Anna Nicole Smith's death, it is unclear how the grief of involved parties benefited viewers. And, as the APA noted above, sensitive material can be a safety risk to the public. Copycat killers, inspired by the dramatic movie-like material in the multimedia manifesto, are threats in the Virginia Tech case. In Iraq, authorities often express concern that insurgents will be inspired by successful terrorist acts depicted on the news and seek to repeat them.
Whilst such dangers are theoretically possible in every news story involving harm committed by one or more persons to another, one needs, to an extent, to accept that this is part of the territory of covering such stories. It is to be decided on the facts of every case whether the risk of copycat reprisals outweighs the need for the public to understand the true seriousness of an event. Also necessary for consideration is the potential slippery slope to widespread censorship that might result from stopping shocking images reaching the headlines. In Iraq, for example, to censor the depiction of any war corpses would set a dangerous precedent. If such censorship were acceptable in one case, would it not be acceptable in all?
ReferencesBarton, P. (1970). Communities in disaster: A sociological analysis of collective stress situations. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Doka, J. (2003). What Makes a Tragedy Public? Retrieved May 17, 2007, from
http://www.hospicefoundation.org/teleconference/2003/doka4.asp.
'Campus killer's family 'so sorry''. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6578319.stm
'Virginia mourns massacre victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6577095.stm
'Virginia shootings: The victims'. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6564075.stm
APA Urges Media to Stop Airing Graphic Cho Materials. Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.psych.org/news_room/press_releases/07-25OpenLetteronChoMaterials.pdf
If you listen to it, you’ll know it is populated with expletives, drug dealers turned emcees, the size of fly bling, rims, and booty in the strip club. The music seems to perpetuate a lifestyle denigrating women, homosexuals, whilst all the while advocating violence and self-destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar bill. 
The other day, we watched a snippet from “Born into Brothels’. We agreed it’s film-makers probably profited in some way or another, but at the end of the day there was not one person who accused it of encouraging inner-city depravation as we suspect Gangsta rap does.
It is a new perspective on Gangsta rap. In the movie, Marcus is given the opportunity and could use violence against those who want to mortally harm him, but instead opts for a more dangerous road; one that inolves using lyrics as verbal bullets to humiliate his foes. He famously walks on stage with a bullet proof vest. He's saying that if you live in the same conditions as he did, then you have braver more nobel means than violence at your disposal. It is the gangland's alternative to 'Kids with Camera's' solution.
