Larry D. Lauer

There is little doubt in this age of digital technology that television can be a powerful tool to cover senseless and violent crises and explore their causes. The horrible killing of nine innocent people  in the church in Charleston once again has me thinking about both the power and responsibility of television news.

Any new media technology will always be used, especially when it proves to be powerful. Over time serious users will perfect ways to make it more and more effective. In the case of television it’s strength is in its capacity to use carefully selected images and editing to dramatize. Extended television news coverage of major crises is therefore inevitable.

All of this raises questions about the potential for both positive and negative influences. These three have been swirling around in my mind:

1. What level and tone of television coverage informs the public most appropriately?

2. How much coverage of details about a perpetrator’s planning and background is appropriate? When might these details and images actually produce a celebrity status in the eyes of like-minded individuals and possibly encourage future assaults? And at what point might this coverage actually help achieve the perpetrator’s public relations objectives, and even those of sympathetic extremist groups?

3. And when might lengthy in-depth coverage move beyond mere observing and reporting into unintended participation in the event itself?

In order to address these and other questions, should television and other news media be  evaluating their own  impact on society and human behavior more visibly and more often… maybe even at times other than when a crisis has occurred?

And since media consumers are pretty much on their own to edit and evaluate their many  information sources in this 24/7 digital media world, is it also a good time to consider more media literacy courses and forums in schools, colleges, and community organizations?