Media Insensitivity To Victims Of Violence - the media is concentrating more on crime coverage, often wounding the victims again with their insensitive coverage

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 1999 by Sue Carter

If viewers are concerned about excessive crime coverage and the effects of intrusive reporting on victims, there are ways to register displeasure, beginning with the simple and definitive step of not watching the television news program. More realistic and of greater impact is letting one's opinion be known, The old s0w is that one letter represents 10 viewers. The reverberations of a pointed, well-written letter to the news director and the general manager, with copies to leading advertisers, can be substantial. While news is a service, it is not a public service. It is a commercial business and one that relies on viewer goodwill.

Savvy TV news viewing is possible. In a breaking news story that is unfolding before the audience, there is always the possibility of grim or inappropriate victim coverage. Live shots leave virtually no room for editorial control. It truly is "what you see is what you get." Live reporting puts the onus of editorship on the viewer, rather than the journalist. What if there had been a second bomb in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, as originally reported? What if O.J. Simpson had pulled the trigger while in the white Bronco? Could local TV news crews have dropped their signals in time and eliminated images? It is highly unlikely. In the case of children and breaking news, the responsibility is even greater for parents and teachers (remember the Challenger explosion?) to move quickly to cut the broadcast and address the questions children have.

The issue, though, is not to recount horror stories, but to propose solutions. The Victims and the Media Program at Michigan State University, as well as similar programs that spring Up nationwide, not only attempt to educate journalism students and professionals about how to report better on victims, but to educate readers and viewers about the impact the stories have on victims--and on reporters.

The Victims and the Media Program employs the terms Act I, Act II, and Act III stories to talk about the different kinds of crime coverage. Act I stories are the breaking-news assignments that focus on gathering facts and impressions under immediate deadline, where victims can find themselves overwhelmed literally before they have had a chance to think.

Act II stories are features that occur later, typically follow-up or anniversary coverage. The reporter is not under immediate deadline, so there is more flexibility concerning opportunities for victims to set terms. Nevertheless, recounting past trauma takes a toll.

Act III stories attempt to put the incident or issue into a broader economic, sociological, historical, or cultural context. These pieces are less common because they require a substantial commitment of journalistic resources, and they are best described as highly polished magazine-type pieces. This kind of coverage can offer victims the best opportunity to tell their stories in depth, but they also risk seeing themselves used as a prop to illustrate larger themes.

Perhaps the sole good news for victims in this changing media reality is that expanded news coverage of crime can provide victims with increased opportunities to tell their own stories. The only way, however, that this can be an empowering and therapeutic experience is when victims are assured that they can speak on their own terms. The good news for readers and viewers is that they can have an impact on coverage, registering concerns over what they see. The news for journalists is that we're watching--perhaps closer than they they think.