Sandy Hook tragedy raises journalism questions

By Alec Lautanen
Editor-in-Chief

After the terrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementarby School, everything from mental health care reform to gun control has been thrown on the table to debate. One of the most interesting aspects from a journalist’s point of view, though, is the role of the media in tragedies like this.
Numerous criticisms have been voiced that point to journalists as the instigators of events like these. Some claim that the media “glorifies” people like Adam Lanza and pushes them to such a level of infamy that other deranged individuals seek to copy them.

As a journalist, covering tragedies like this puts newspapers and their staff in a very precarious situation. On one hand, publications have to maintain their responsibility to report the news. In spite of this commitment, human morals often pull in the exact opposite direction.

Last summer, at a journalism workshop I attended, we had a class discussing how to report on disasters. As part of it, counselors played victims of a simulated earthquake and students were told to prod for information from a “mother” who had just lost her three-year-old son.

Even though it was fictitious, even that seemed like too much. I respect the search for facts and the communication of information, but there has to be a limit to what’s acceptable in terms of the emotional cost.

There is not a complete set of guidelines for how journalists deal with tragedies, but the media should strive for professionalism through discretion. Journalistic integrity shouldn’t be forsaken and facts should be reported, but there’s a line for what is necessary to communicate news. In cases where it isn’t totally clear, exhibitionism should never be an end goal for any publication under any circumstances.

It’s hard to call for a decrease in information reported, especially in an age where instant facts are the norm for a majority of information-age readers. However, the ability, and more importantly the demand, to report everything unfiltered doesn’t mean journalists should forsake moral and sympathetic discretion.