How Much Newtown Coverage Is Too Much?

Spirited discussion on RadioDiscussions.com NY Board over the weekend concerning media coerage of the massacre at Newtown, CT.

From NYTimes Front Page 12/16/2012

From Marckd:

Okay - yes something this serious should be covered - maybe for a few hours - Maybe all day in the Hartford and New York City markets - MAYBE - MAYBE NOT - 

Here is what I find wrong. The coverage was redundant. They said the same 10 things 10,000 times all day long. Also with all this coverage - I believe it does far more harm than good. What it does is gives a few more crazy people ideas. Now I think there should be coverage of this Connecticut Shooting - BUT NOT NEARLY AS MUCH AS WE HAD...AND CERTAINLY NOT NATIONWIDE WALL TO WALL...All this does is give the ones that causes this attention. What scares me is this can happen anywhere we go. At the grocery store, at church, at Wal mart, at the mall, at a restaurant, at a gas station...Are we safe at any public place... 

Maybe at an airport terminal, a courthouse, some schools that have metal detectors, and at Six Flags parks which also have metal detectors...Will we have to put such devices everyehere we go??? Will we have to go through security checkpoints to eat at Burger King (where I was when I heard about the shooting around 1145 AM when only 3 people were (reported) dead...

WNTIRadio responded:

People tune in and out.  So you, listening to it non-stop, would be hearing the same things over and over.  Someone getting in the car would hear it for the first time. 

Also, what are stations supposed to do?  Ignore it and play happy pop music? 

Sometimes, people on this board are disconnected from reality.  Yes, radio is a business but sometimes it does take a back seat when there is a tragedy on this level.  And you know what else?  None of radio matters at all to the victims and their families.

TimeIsTight noted:

This was far far more than just a "National" story in the US. 

Out of curiosity on Friday, I picked up live TV news channels from all over the world.  The US shooting was the top story on NHK in Japan, and Al Jazerra-English from Doha.  There was wall-to-wall coverage on the BBC domestic news channel for the UK, and on BBC International for the rest of the world.  There was non-stop coverage on the France-24 where they had a related discussion on gun control.  Russia Today had full coverage and were talking to "experts" about gun violence in the US.  And PressTV out of Iran had a San Francisco-based editorial writer (the guy looked like an old hippie) on explaining how the "the US is a violent society, with unhappy young people who can't get a job, mentally crack up and do this kind  thing."  Even the Iranian host sounded like he wasn't buying it. 

I didn't bother to check Korean, Taiwanese, Australian, Irish or Canadian TV news broadcasts because I already knew what they were covering, and I didn't bother to fire up either of my short-wave radios to see what was on the few international news stations there.  I already knew. 

The point is that we now live in a global village, and the whole world is watching.  It was an unspeakable tragedy for that small town in Connecticut and all those unfortunate people and families, but the whole world was hurting with them, and the US image was once again internationally damaged by some mentally ill individual with too easy access to a gun made for soldiers or police. It was a national tragedy, and as with any other coverage of anything, when you have had enough you have the option to turn it off. 

There were radio and TV channels offering something else to watch or listen to.  You always have the option of taking a walk, reading a book, going shopping, or pulling out a DVD.  There is little doubt that everything we could have accurately known about the shooting could have been compressed into a ten-minute report.  But wall-to-wall coverage is the new international standard in massively tragic situations like this, the BBC and Al Jazeera still have multiple live reporters and crews at the scene, along with all the US networks and local stations.  Welcome to 21st Century news coverage.

Jmtillery chimed-in:

Although I realize this is way off-topic as it relates to radio, I will offer this opinion in rebuttal. 

With stiffer gun control laws enacted, the only people who will be unarmed are law abiding citizens - people who actually obey the law. Criminals, on the other hand, will always find a way to obtain a firearm. Furthermore, there are already laws in place to prevent the sale of any firearm to mentally challenged individuals. 

In conclusion, expect a public outcry and public demand to enact new legislation to "prevent" further tragedies as the one that occurred over the past few days. However, any new legislation is redundant since there are already laws that make it illegal to publicly display a firearm and furthermore use it to kill anyone.

Read More Now

What do you think?  Drop a comment....