Media overstep role in D.C. sniper reporting
by Chia-yun Lo, reporter
Snipers successfully created bottomless fears during the past month, making people afraid to live normally.
When the sniper attack first started in the Washington, D.C. area, no one knew who would do such a thing, and no one could predict who, when, where and what would happen next.
Since 9/11 events, people immediately relate any unexplained violence to terrorism.
The two snipers were caught Oct. 23.
The public realized the serial killers were not terrorists but two African Americans. We all assumed the sniper was white, approximately 30, trained in the military. We assumed this because the media gave us this profile.
Apparently, their motivation was just the thrill and challenge of killing, competing with each others accuracy on shooting human targets and getting away.
The public absorbed information from journalists and the news media. Reporters clarified and explained the events and let the publics voice be heard about how they felt during the sniper killings.
Was it ethical to assume that whoever was doing the shooting was a terrorist? Should the public and the media now admit their mistakes and make corrections promptly?
It is easy to understand why journalists immediately related the sniper killings to terrorism. But the public was already scared and wondering who would be killed next.
The media created an even bigger fear by reporting the sniper attack 24 hours non-stop with some false reports of terrorism.
These reports not only gave the public an enormous fear, they pointed police in the wrong direction.
After the media learned these snipers were no terrorists, they blamed one another for giving the false reports, and the public did not even get an apology.
During the sniper attack, the public once again became the victims of the media.
On the one hand, the public appreciates the media for telling the story.
On the other, the public knows that journalists and the news media still have much room to improve.

|