By Ethan Walshe
Editor-in-Chief

We’ve spent a lot of time talking about the horrendous tragedy that happened a week ago today in Newtown, Connecticut, as has every other news source in the country. And that’s precisely what this is about: How does the media cover a tragedy? What do they do to get the “exclusives” or the best angles for any given story?

But above all else, when the media covers a tragedy, what is their role? What kind of ethics are involved? These are all questions that have been running through my head over the past week.

To be honest, some of what I have seen covered on the news has disgusted me. In particular, immediately after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, when CNN was actually interviewing children, I was horrified. Who thought that this was a good idea? These kids have just endured a horrific ordeal, leave them alone. Do not ask them what they saw. Some of them saw their friends die around them. Does this really seem appropriate to be interviewing them for live television at this time?

This was the most obvious offense that I saw. Most other coverage was not too objectionable, though if I’m honest, I did not watch it all. It was far too difficult to bring myself to hear about twenty children losing their lives more than a few times. I cried.

I think that the more important thing to address regarding how the media covers these tragedies is to take a look at how they portray the person who committed these atrocities. Far too often the shooter’s name is plastered across headlines and leading stories. They gain infamy from what they did, which I’d say is sometimes their plan from the get-go.

This is what I find so reprehensible. I believe that once this man entered a school and murdered twenty-six people, he forfeited his right to be remembered, which is why I will not mention his name and I tried my hardest not to even learn it, though it proved impossible.

Although I think that this case may be different. After the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting in August, James Holmes’ face and name was all over the place. I think that because Sandy Hook struck such a chord with everyone who heard the story, news networks may have decided to instead focus on the stories of the victims, not on the story of the deranged shooter.

This is how it should be. The names of the victims are the ones who should be remember, not the name of the one who took their lives.

When the media displays any shooters name all over the news, he or she gains infamy, notoriety, and recognition, inspiring copycats. For God’s sake, a man in Indiana threatened to go and shoot up an elementary school after the news of the Sandy Hook tragedy spread like wildfire. This kind of thing always happens, and it can not continue.

This is a time to remember the fallen. I’m glad that the media has generally understood this after this horrific event, but they do not always do this. I would hope that, God forbid, if something of this magnitude ever happens again that they do not give the shooter fame.

It’s impractical to refuse to mention their name or show their picture, but it does not need to be a focus when covering the story. Sure, people always want to know why someone would do something like this, but will we ever really know why? No, I don’t think we will, so we mustn’t dwell on it.

The media has a responsibility to relay the facts, not to sensationalize tragedy.