There’s a Better Way
By Mel Copen March 8, 2001
© Mel Copen, March, 2001
Last week the nation once again experienced two outrageous acts relating to juvenile violence. One took place at Santana High School, in California, when a young teenage student opened fire, killing two and wounding 13. Regardless of what provoked this action, just by the nature of what was done it is obvious that by societal standards the shooter is not a well person.
The second took place and is still occurring all over the nation – the glorification of the act as television news shows, in particular reward the perpetrator with tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars of prime time coverage. We have seen heart-rending interviews with fellow students and teachers and with family and friends of those who were killed and wounded. There have been detailed histories of the shooter, and even the showing of a videotape that he had made describing his dislike of his school. Each news program has tried to top the others, looking for the “sensational” and showing as many aspects of the story as it can in an attempt to raise their ratings. And in today’s milieu it would be more surprising than not if an eventual book and movie don’t result.
There once was a time when TV shows reported the news. Today they make it, directly or indirectly. The coverage of these shootings is an illustration of the latter. Their “reality” news “programming” encourages others who seek similar glory to express their grievances in the same manner. You and I might agree that, in these situations, “glory” seems like an inappropriate term, but it is not important what we think – what is important is how the shooter may see it.
Clearly the shooters are not well people. But what about the media? Are these media shows the acts of “well” minds? In law, abetting or encouraging a crime is a crime itself. One cannot hide behind the 1st Amendment to cry “fire” in a crowd. But the definition of what is permissible still stretches far enough to allow this type of indirect encouragement of “copycats” to kill others, without fear (on the part of the media) of legal sanctions.
The issue of “censorship” is a very sticky one. I do believe that First Amendment “freedom of speech, or of the press…” is fundamental to our way of life. But with freedom comes responsibility. And I believe that many executives within the television news media have ignored that sense of responsibility. The people do have a right to know. And television news has a right, even a responsibility, to report. But there is a delicate balance between solid and interesting reporting of the news and competing by creating “media circuses” which, ironically, satisfy the desires of those who commit criminal acts in their search for notoriety and publicity. The news shows create the “contributing” environment and then, sadly, profit from it as well.
Many factors have played a role in the senseless acts of teenage violence that have taken place in our schools in recent years. And many groups share responsibility for creating the specific situations and for their eventual solution. The complexity is described in a recent FBI report entitled “The School Shooter” which states:
“School shootings and other forms of school violence are not just a school’s problem or a law enforcement problem. They involve schools, families and the communities. An adolescent comes to school with a collective life experience, both positive and negative, shaped by the environments of family, school, peers, community and culture. Out of that collective experience come values, prejudices, biases, emotions and the student’s responses to training, stress and authority. His or her behavior at school is affected by the entire range of experiences and influences. No one factor is decisive. By the same token, however, no one factor is completely without effect, which means that when a student has shown signs of potential violent behavior, schools and other community institutions do have the capacity — and the responsibility — to keep that potential from turning real.”
Think of what might be accomplished if, instead of pursuing the reporting paths they currently do, the money and time that TV networks have given to the specific acts were largely directed to [ital.] identifying underlying causes and educating the public to change those causes.[end ital.] Perhaps we would know more about the causes of juvenile violence. What, for example, is the linkage between violence in TV and the movies and juvenile behavior (one recent study estimates that the average American child witnesses 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence by the end of elementary school)? What about the impact of violent home computer and video arcade games where every act of violence imaginable is not only shown, but provides for active participation? What effect do hours in front of a computer screen have on the development of vital every-day communications and interpersonal skills? How about bullying? How can we help young people understand the consequence of being bullies as well as being bullied? How about the role of parents and teachers in identifying problems and steps they can take to forestall acts of violence? What are appropriate roles for peers? Think seriously of what might be accomplished if a large portion of the expense and coverage devoted to these incidents were [ital.] channeled into constructive action to help identify causes and prepare people to eliminate them, [end ital.] or at least to deal with the situations in advance of the actual violent acts!
Nothing that I have said takes great insights. To the contrary, it just seems to be common sense. But obviously it isn’t. Most of the people who make decisions about TV news coverage have children or grandchildren in schools. As individuals, I am sure they are just as revolted as the rest of us about what is occurring. A call from the police to inform them that one of their loved ones has been in such an incident will be just as terrifying to them as to anyone else. But something seems to happen when they don their network hats to vie with other news programs in the dog-eat-dog competitive TV market. The opportunity to “out-do” the other stations then becomes the driving force.
However, there is another side to this coin that may be even more significant. [Ital.] They wouldn’t be offering this type of programming if it didn’t generate viewership. So all of us are a critical part of the problem. [end Ital.]
It is viewership that is driving the process. High audiences equate to high advertising revenue streams. It is as simple as that. The most effective way to fight the trend is simple. Contacting the networks is likely to have little impact. The best approach is to let advertisers know that, by supporting this type of behavior, they will be penalized by lack of your patronage. One doesn’t need the law to bring about a change. One only needs concerned citizens who express their moral outrage in a way that truly makes a difference. Without such action, there are likely to be more shootings and more glorifications, unless the sad day arrives when shootings are so commonplace that they are no longer news.
It is clearly wishful thinking, but wouldn’t it be wonderful if those same TV networks felt a moral obligation to help change the situation rather than encourage future incidents (which, in the current environment, also work to their advantage)? And wouldn’t it be great if a significant number of people said – “we’re not going to put up with this any more.” Many, many positive things might ensue!
——