Case Study 1.2: Killers with Cameras Body cameras and social media sites have ad
ID: 421283 • Letter: C
Question
Case Study 1.2: Killers with Cameras Body cameras and social media sites have added a new chilling dimension to murder. Killers can now film their crimes and post them for the world to see. That was the case when a disgruntled former television station employee used a body camera to film his murder of television reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward during a live report in Roanoke, Virginia. He then wrote about the shooting on Twitter and uploaded his video to Facebook.News sources were faced with an ethical dilemma: How much (if any) of the shooter’s footage should they show to audiences? ABC News refused to show any of the video, as did CNN. According to ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, “[It was] Something we wrestled with today: whether to grant the gunman his last wish by playing his video. We will not.”1 CBS News used video from Ward’s camera (which was also filming during the attack), though stopping before the actual shooting. CBS news president David Rhodes explained, “Using the material we did, we helped people understand the degree of premeditation behind the attack. If you don’t show some of what we showed, you can leave people with the impression that somebody just snapped.”2
The New York Daily News received intense criticism for its decision to use three still photos from the shooter’s video under the headline “Shocking slay of reporter, cameraman EXECUTED.” In the first two pictures, a gun is aimed at Parker, interviewing a local chamber of commerce official. In the last frame, Parker displays her shock when seeing the gun’s muzzle flash. Daily News editors defended their use of the images, saying that the photos were a “definitive part of the story, however disturbing and horrific.”3 According to a spokesperson, the paper’s editors believe there should be stronger gun control laws and hoped to bring visibility to the issue “at a time when it is so easy for the public to become inured to such senseless violence.”4 In contrast, The New York Times decided not to run the pictures because they were so disturbing, as did the Boston Globe, which opted instead to use stills taken from Ward’s footage showing Flanagan standing over the cameraman.
Killers are apparently motivated to post videos of their deeds in hopes of drawing attention, as a way to say, “Look at me.” In so doing, they stand out from previous mass murderers like the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech gunman who didn’t have the technology to easily film their crimes. As more shooters arm themselves with cameras as well as guns, editors can expect to make more decisions about what horrific images to broadcast or publish.
Discussion Probes Would you watch the video of this or another shooting? Why or why not? Does showing videos filmed by killers encourage others to imitate their behavior? Was using the video of cameraman Ward a better option for media outlets than using the shooter’s video? Do you think the Daily News was more motivated by principle or by the hope of attracting more readers? Do you support the decision of Daily News editors to show the still shots of the shooting on its front page? Why or why not? What ethical principles should editors and other leaders use when deciding what information to release? Case Study 1.2: Killers with Cameras Body cameras and social media sites have added a new chilling dimension to murder. Killers can now film their crimes and post them for the world to see. That was the case when a disgruntled former television station employee used a body camera to film his murder of television reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward during a live report in Roanoke, Virginia. He then wrote about the shooting on Twitter and uploaded his video to Facebook.
News sources were faced with an ethical dilemma: How much (if any) of the shooter’s footage should they show to audiences? ABC News refused to show any of the video, as did CNN. According to ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, “[It was] Something we wrestled with today: whether to grant the gunman his last wish by playing his video. We will not.”1 CBS News used video from Ward’s camera (which was also filming during the attack), though stopping before the actual shooting. CBS news president David Rhodes explained, “Using the material we did, we helped people understand the degree of premeditation behind the attack. If you don’t show some of what we showed, you can leave people with the impression that somebody just snapped.”2
The New York Daily News received intense criticism for its decision to use three still photos from the shooter’s video under the headline “Shocking slay of reporter, cameraman EXECUTED.” In the first two pictures, a gun is aimed at Parker, interviewing a local chamber of commerce official. In the last frame, Parker displays her shock when seeing the gun’s muzzle flash. Daily News editors defended their use of the images, saying that the photos were a “definitive part of the story, however disturbing and horrific.”3 According to a spokesperson, the paper’s editors believe there should be stronger gun control laws and hoped to bring visibility to the issue “at a time when it is so easy for the public to become inured to such senseless violence.”4 In contrast, The New York Times decided not to run the pictures because they were so disturbing, as did the Boston Globe, which opted instead to use stills taken from Ward’s footage showing Flanagan standing over the cameraman.
Killers are apparently motivated to post videos of their deeds in hopes of drawing attention, as a way to say, “Look at me.” In so doing, they stand out from previous mass murderers like the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech gunman who didn’t have the technology to easily film their crimes. As more shooters arm themselves with cameras as well as guns, editors can expect to make more decisions about what horrific images to broadcast or publish.
Discussion Probes Would you watch the video of this or another shooting? Why or why not? Does showing videos filmed by killers encourage others to imitate their behavior? Was using the video of cameraman Ward a better option for media outlets than using the shooter’s video? Do you think the Daily News was more motivated by principle or by the hope of attracting more readers? Do you support the decision of Daily News editors to show the still shots of the shooting on its front page? Why or why not? What ethical principles should editors and other leaders use when deciding what information to release? Case Study 1.2: Killers with Cameras Body cameras and social media sites have added a new chilling dimension to murder. Killers can now film their crimes and post them for the world to see. That was the case when a disgruntled former television station employee used a body camera to film his murder of television reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward during a live report in Roanoke, Virginia. He then wrote about the shooting on Twitter and uploaded his video to Facebook.
News sources were faced with an ethical dilemma: How much (if any) of the shooter’s footage should they show to audiences? ABC News refused to show any of the video, as did CNN. According to ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, “[It was] Something we wrestled with today: whether to grant the gunman his last wish by playing his video. We will not.”1 CBS News used video from Ward’s camera (which was also filming during the attack), though stopping before the actual shooting. CBS news president David Rhodes explained, “Using the material we did, we helped people understand the degree of premeditation behind the attack. If you don’t show some of what we showed, you can leave people with the impression that somebody just snapped.”2
The New York Daily News received intense criticism for its decision to use three still photos from the shooter’s video under the headline “Shocking slay of reporter, cameraman EXECUTED.” In the first two pictures, a gun is aimed at Parker, interviewing a local chamber of commerce official. In the last frame, Parker displays her shock when seeing the gun’s muzzle flash. Daily News editors defended their use of the images, saying that the photos were a “definitive part of the story, however disturbing and horrific.”3 According to a spokesperson, the paper’s editors believe there should be stronger gun control laws and hoped to bring visibility to the issue “at a time when it is so easy for the public to become inured to such senseless violence.”4 In contrast, The New York Times decided not to run the pictures because they were so disturbing, as did the Boston Globe, which opted instead to use stills taken from Ward’s footage showing Flanagan standing over the cameraman.
Killers are apparently motivated to post videos of their deeds in hopes of drawing attention, as a way to say, “Look at me.” In so doing, they stand out from previous mass murderers like the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech gunman who didn’t have the technology to easily film their crimes. As more shooters arm themselves with cameras as well as guns, editors can expect to make more decisions about what horrific images to broadcast or publish.
Discussion Probes Would you watch the video of this or another shooting? Why or why not? Does showing videos filmed by killers encourage others to imitate their behavior? Was using the video of cameraman Ward a better option for media outlets than using the shooter’s video? Do you think the Daily News was more motivated by principle or by the hope of attracting more readers? Do you support the decision of Daily News editors to show the still shots of the shooting on its front page? Why or why not? What ethical principles should editors and other leaders use when deciding what information to release?
Explanation / Answer
No, I do not watch the video and generally i do not prefer to watch such kind of videos. If we watch this kind of videos again and again, our senses become senseless- or psychologically we may lost humanity and inclucate devil culture. watching such videos or searching and reading such news may encourage crime rates in US.
we can not accept with the statement that by showing the videos others may follow the same. But the people who are immatured, or not insane, may attract about those and they may try it. for them it is a game of live or death. but there are lot more between these two. god have give equal right to all of us to live, but because of some people greeds, wish, or cruelity, others may suffer.
Playing those kind of videos or too many pics is wrong, either it may uplodaed from a professional TV channel camera man or from the shooter's video- both will cause negative effect in the minds of people. hence it is better to not focusing on the photos or videso, cover it as possible as minimum and just inform the news to the people.
The objective of daily news is create awareness about the news among the readers and also attracting more number of readers. some times they intentionally plays some tricks and try to attract more and more readers. But blindly we can not say that most of the news channels or papers only focus on attracting more and more news readers or followers only. they mainly works for educating the people with their news and articles, and is the main objective of news channels and news papers.