the media's choices in the coverage of the virginia tech shooting

In times of crisis and tragedy, the challenge to media organizations remains the same: aside from adhering to the basic tenets of journalism, reporters and decision makers must exercise greater sensitivity and responsibility in their reportage.

The Virginia Tech shooting last Monday was certainly no exception.

But if in the past, the challenge would mostly revolve around getting a reporter or crew to the scene and transmitting footage as quickly as possible, the shooting presented challenges we would not have even had to consider in previous years.

unique challenges
For one, citizen journalism played a large part in how the shooting was reported. CNN's now familiar footage of the incident taken from a cellphone camera was courtesy of Virginia Tech undergrad Jamal Albarghouti. While a bit shaky and below broadcast quality, the footage put CNN's viewers on the scene. The message: Albarghouti was there. Not a single reporter or cameraman from a mainstream media organization was.

But there's more. On Wednesday, NBC received a package containing materials from the gunman, Virginia Tech student Cho Seung-Hui, portions of which they aired on NBC Nightly News. A video showed Cho ranting, while photos showed him in various "Rambo"-like poses, pointing a gun at the camera.

media response
Citizen journalism draws mixed reactions from professional journalists. Armed only with digital cameras and mobile phones, citizen journalists might find themselves in the same kind of danger more experienced ones might be more prepared for. Does this make them heroes? Without them, what would we know, see, or hear of the Virginia Tech shooting?

Albarghouti was the world's eyes and ears in those moments. He documented those moments as he perhaps thought a good citizen -- any citizen -- should do. And he turned in his footage online via CNN's I-Reports. It was his choice to make -- one for which he reportedly got paid, after CNN used his footage on the air.

The case is the same with the NBC footage. It was a choice. Though Steve Capus, president of NBC News, assures us that the decision to air photographs and parts of the video was "not taken lightly," is it one we will remember if a similar incident takes place in the future? Remember that Cho's model was Columbine. Besides being disturbing and graphic, could the images -- and the fact that they've been aired countless times -- turn Cho into a misunderstood underdog kind of hero in some way?

Sure, the airing of Cho's material might allow us some insight that may aid in identifying future gunmen, but would it help us prevent such carnage in the future? What are the effects on viewers -- on one hand, the families of the victims, the survivors; and on the other, children, extremists, the mentally and emotionally disturbed?

It may be a long shot, but NBC's airing of Cho's material can be compared to giving in to a hostage taker's demands. It is an attention-getting device, a call for attention. Nowhere among Cho's material can an apology be found; no mea culpa, no confession, no remorse. Instead we find reasons -- a man justifying his actions by hate, anger, and the need to act out his aggression. It is distressing and painful to watch.

we, the audience
All of this brings us back to the audience. What does this kind of coverage say about the audience? Are we starved for speed and scoops? Why did Albarghouti's footage sell? Would we make the same decision he made?

There are more questions, none of them easy: Is it all just part of the mad scramble for ratings? Do we really, truly want to watch the rantings of a killer and know why on God's earth he conceived of and carried out such an act? Do we really want to get inside the minds of such criminals? What kind of coverage do we really want?

In times of crisis and tragedy, what do the media think we, the audience, want? Judging by their response to the Virginia Tech shooting, it is clear: we all had to be there at that moment, and we all had to be the gunman too.