I attended my first crime scene this week, the shootings at Christenson Village. One of the many things I observed confirmed firsthand what I have come to see as people's general obsession with knowing everything right now - even if it's gossip.
I was sitting in a packed office awaiting an appointment when the media helicopters started to buzz the sky. First I heard there was a shooting at the alternative high school, but behind the school fields is where the air ambulance landed to evacuate the two shooting victims.
Then I heard correctly that the incident was at Christenson Village, and that three women were shot dead. Then I heard two women and a man were shot and the man was dead. Then it was two shot and both dead. Then it was back to three, but one was a policeman who was added into the mix of shooting victims. What's worse is that some media are willing to fuel that hungry demand for information. I read on the Internet and viewed on TV several of the mentioned scenarios as reported by reputable news stations.
One gun, two guns. The shooter was 50 then 60 then 40 years old. Some accounts made it sound like the O.K. Corral shoot-out with up to six police officers against a granny in a wheelchair brandishing a long rifle. So what's a reporter to do? The public wants information. Their bosses want them to have the information to give. The police don't give statements immediately as they sort through the mess of a crime scene, and witnesses are often asked not to speak to the media for legal reasons.
Where does that leave the reporter on the ground? Reporting hearsay? Pontificating, imagining and sensationalizing the horror aloud for viewers in place of plain facts? One could surmise what they think happened and bookend it with "this is just speculation," but the message is still broadcast and people pass it along.
Television journalists have it tougher than their print colleagues do, and daily newspapers are harder pressed than the weeklies such as us here at Coast Reporter.
How long would a TV reporter have his or her job if they beamed in live at 11 o'clock and said to the anchor, "Sorry. I have nothing to report at this time because we have been given no official comment and were not allowed to speak to witnesses and I've been freezing my butt off standing out here on the sidewalk for the last eight hours waiting."
Would you watch the news if that's what played out with every tragedy, or do you get a kick out of watching hour after hour as the facts trickle in to overtake the myth?
When did we become a 24/7 news hungry nation? I throw on American CNN sometimes and am amazed at the number of talking heads who can carry on for hours speculating and giving their opinions on everything from economics to accidents and celebrity chaos to international crises.Would you rather wait and get the facts once?
In this particular situation, Coast Reporter, by virtue of being a weekly newspaper, has time - time to wade through the volumes of information coming out of this tragedy. We are human and will make errors now and again, but because we are not under the strict pressures of daily and sometimes hourly deadlines, there is an added opportunity to report on events more accurately the first time around.
