As a journalist, I could not imagine covering an event as tragic as the Virginia Tech shooting. To meddle in these peoples lives just hours after their friends and schoolmates have experienced one of the most horrific massacres in school history is something I could probably never bring myself to do. These journalists must be brave, respectful, and most importantly, ethical.
When I heard about the shooting, the first thing I did was turn on the TV and wait to hear the facts. How many were killed? Where did the shooting take place? Why did this happen? And most important, WHO WAS THE GUNMAN? Media outlets rushed to give us the answers, but in doing so, broke the golden rule of good reporting: accuracy.
In early reports, several television networks identified a 23-year-old United States citizen of Chinese descent as the gunman. Sun-Times Columnist Michael Sneed was cited as the source by news outlets such as WWBM, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and the Herlad Sun. NBC additionaly reported that the gunman was not a student at Virginia Tech. Unfortunately, Sneed was misinformed and, as a result, accused an innocent man, Wayne Chiang, of murdering 32 people.
Since the broadcasts, Chiang has received "numerous death threats" and "slanderous accusations." I don't know much about his life or what kind of person he was, but no one deserves to go to bed an innocent man and wake up a world-renowned murderer...especially when he's 250 miles away from where the killings took place. Sneed not only failed to check the facts, she failed as a journalist. She let down her co-workers, she let down the public, and she let down Chiang.
By April 17, Sun-Times corrected Sneed's original story and named Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean national and Virginia Tech student, as the shooter, but it did not stop the criticism. China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao accused the U.S. media for "irresponsible reports" and said it was a violation of professional ethics. Chinese students at Virginia Tech plan to protest the Sun-Times report as well.
I know our job is hard...we want to break the news and we want to be the first, but it's so important that the public gets the truth. These people rely on us and incidents like this weaken their trust. Let this be a lesson...
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Convergent Journalism: Kristof proves it makes all the difference
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof spoke to SMU students about the issue with Darfur and eliminating genocide as part of the Human Trafficking symposium Tuesday. Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend, but from what I've a heard, the man made quite an impact.
Kristof is a two time Pulitizer Prize winner for his reporting during the pro-democracy student movement in 1990 and his commentary on the genocide in Darfur in 2006. He has risked his life numerous times in hope of giving voice to the voiceless and awakening readers to the problems and issues ailing third world countries.
In addition to his reporting, Kristof provides multimedia packages that feature video and images of those inflicted by violent warfare. Because the images allow people to comprehend the damages visually, they are often motivated to help.
Text alone is empty. When readers skim articles on Darfur and America's need to interfere, they are sympathetic but not convinced. It's not because they're selfish, they're just skeptical about charities and where their money goes. Images can change that.
Pictures are moving. They are the evidence behind a journalist's words. I've read about Darfur a couple times, but Kristof's use of multimedia is what really pulled me in. Images have an emotional tie and when used effectively, they are often the key factor in transforming peoples thoughts. Those wary of donating to charities are compelled to find other ways to contribute to the cause.
Journalists put a lot of time and effort into their stories. If they want to get a reaction they should consider Kristof's tactics and make use of convergent journalism. It'd be a shame to let their tedious work go unnoticed.
Kristof is a two time Pulitizer Prize winner for his reporting during the pro-democracy student movement in 1990 and his commentary on the genocide in Darfur in 2006. He has risked his life numerous times in hope of giving voice to the voiceless and awakening readers to the problems and issues ailing third world countries.
In addition to his reporting, Kristof provides multimedia packages that feature video and images of those inflicted by violent warfare. Because the images allow people to comprehend the damages visually, they are often motivated to help.
Text alone is empty. When readers skim articles on Darfur and America's need to interfere, they are sympathetic but not convinced. It's not because they're selfish, they're just skeptical about charities and where their money goes. Images can change that.
Pictures are moving. They are the evidence behind a journalist's words. I've read about Darfur a couple times, but Kristof's use of multimedia is what really pulled me in. Images have an emotional tie and when used effectively, they are often the key factor in transforming peoples thoughts. Those wary of donating to charities are compelled to find other ways to contribute to the cause.
Journalists put a lot of time and effort into their stories. If they want to get a reaction they should consider Kristof's tactics and make use of convergent journalism. It'd be a shame to let their tedious work go unnoticed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)