I'm guilty. I've been meaning to write about this for a long time, maybe as far back as the killing of Daniel Pearl. I certainly should have written about it after the pistol whipping of the television crew in San Francisco. But here I am now, motivated by the killing of two television journalists in Virginia on 'live' TV. It was probably the 'live' part that did it.
I'm guilty. I've been desensitized to violence in the media, on all platforms and now have come to expect it, want it. When the 'alert' went off on my phone early in the morning and immediately linked me to the video of the shooting, I watched it. A couple of times. It's not the first time that someone has died on 'live' television, not even the first time someone has been killed or killed themselves. But the nonchalance of this particular killing and posting is troubling at a couple of different levels.
The death of journalists is nothing new, nor are attacks on them. We have died covering dangerous situations in dangerous places and we have died by accident because we are in dangerous places. But the new part of the equation is the targeting of members of the media because of what they do. For perspective, not nostalgia, let me tell you there was a time when we would spray paint the word 'PRESS' on the side of our vehicles in places of conflict so that the combatants would know exactly who and where we were. We used our press passes as both real and perceived badges of honor and safe passage. Now? Not so much.
So what has changed and who's to blame? The change part is simple -- it's the world and the manner in which it perceives what journalists do and who we are. Again for perspective, there was a time when journalists of all stripes were considered impartial arbiters of the truth-all sides. But journalism and the people who purport to practice it have changed. Journalists are often now perceived as "stars," as using situations to further their own agendas, as part of the story instead of simply reporting on it. They are verbally attacked on national television and berated with impunity. It has become such an all-pervasive view that even a local crew in a small market is perceived as part of the "demon media," and therefore nothing special. And when you're "nothing special," and you're just another man or woman on the street, you too are subject to everyday dangers. Maybe even more so.
As a journalism instructor, I teach a simple code of ethics: seek the truth and report it. Minimize harm. Act independently. Be accountable. The devil lies in the practice. I have students come to me all the time questioning that simple code compared to what they just saw either on TV or online. "How can they show that? Do that? If they're following that code you taught us?"
Too often I have no answer.
So who and what are to blame? Blame is likely the wrong word but works here because it begs for responsibility. Let's start with the mechanics. Perspective. At one point there would have been no killing on "live" television in Virginia because you couldn't go 'live' outside the studio. The news had to be gathered, brought back and distributed. That all took time and time is a good thing, or was. It gave us all a chance to think about what we were doing, saying, showing and make editorial decisions based on our best journalistic practices. When that "alert" went off on my phone and linked me to that video, it was within an hour of the actual event. Not much time to think. In fact, with that very same phone I can go "live" right now from my backyard.
Wanna see my dog chase a ball? So some of what's to blame is simply technology. We can gather and distribute information from all over the world to all over the world in a mere "click." And anyone can do it. ISIS has a very accomplished production team with thousands and thousands of followers -- total public access.
So it's technology's fault? No, at least not yet. Technology is only as good or bad as the people who use it. Ultimate responsibility lies with the people behind the wheel, their figurative hands on the mouse or touch pad or digital transmitter switch. The FCC used to play a part in this, but since has been neutered to the point that when naked demonstrators show up in Times Square all the interesting body parts are blurred for broadcast but the killing of two journalists or the police shootings in South Carolina and Cincinnati are left to run unedited. Bullets yes, breasts no. Interesting mind set. Yippee for full access.
Responsibility is a tough thing to accept, but it would be a start if we all accepted some of it. As journalists we need to back away from the "I'd rather be first than right" mentality that leads to the immediate posting of questionable material, in a journalistic sense. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it should be done. We need to establish, or reestablish guidelines of good taste and good journalism and invite the audience, the public, to embrace them.
We need to train journalists at every level, from managers to the street, understanding that there is no such thing as a "civilian" journalist. I used to work with a fellow who swore he could "..take someone off the #2 bus and teach them to do what you do in two weeks." He said it in jest, sort of. But if we want to get respect we need to earn it and while it may be unfair for all journalists to be tainted with a broad brush it's simply the way it is.
The two young reporters who were killed in Virginia weren't killed because they were journalists, but their "live" assassination and the video of it serve to remind us of just where we are when it comes to the state of the media. Desensitized. And we did it to ourselves.
Did I mention they were killed by someone who at one time also called himself a 'journalist'?
I'm guilty.