Professional discussion of coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings

Agreed.

 

NBC had a New York counter-terrorism expert on the air, and he eviscerated the Va Tech campus police. I do wonder why they didn't sound alarms around the campus after the first shooting, but I don't know that much about it. And I doubt the NBC consultant is that much more informed than anybody else. There may be a time and place for this criticism, but it's not right now. Not until you know you've got all the major facts.

 

The CNN expert said the SWAT team should have been going at that building full force. I agree. They looked overmatched. Granted it was a cell phone video, but when shots are ringing and people are dieing "you need to get guns in the building." The first string SWAT or police is not in SW Virginia. I think we found this out yesterday.

Good job if the student paper broke the story on their website 45 minutes before the email went out.

 

Front page of VT student paper today
http://www.collegiatetimes.org.vt.edu/0417-p1.jpg

 

The doofus in the studio anchoring CNN's morning coverage is raising his voice in an indignant manner as he questions a L.E. expert. WTF? Show a little decorum.

 

Really impressive front. Great timeline.

 

Excellent job by the CT staff. They made this alum proud.

 

Jack cafferty is one of the bggest assheads I've ever seenon TV. And that's saying something. Watched coverage for most of the day, but not last night. As usual, TV starts editorializing off the bat. Ugh.

And I agree with the others that calls have to be made to families. But you can sow some humanity in it. Wait a while. In a smaller town paper, someone there may know some of the parents and maybe they can call or see if they feel like talking. There is a proper way to handle it, but it has to be handled.

 

Networks feel like they have to switch over to 24/7 coverage of an event like this, even though the information coming from the source is very slow developing. In this case, it meant that they would leap at any little fact/rumor that begins to surface, blowing it all out of proportion.

For example, the confusion over the death count -- 32 or 33 -- could have simply been explained if they stopped long enough to understand that 32 people were killed by the gunman who then killed himself (for the 33rd death).

As for the police officer giving bad answers, what do you expect. He is in the beginning of a very complex investigation and even though it most likely was one guy going nuts, the police have to go through the process of making sure that is all it was. All they need is to get through this and find that the shootings weren't related. The other thing they are worried about is saying something now that will come back to haunt them in a lawsuit (which is inevitable).

 

I'm not defending her, but is it possible a producer was in her ear while the president spoke to her, and she was distracted and not listening closely, and heard it wrong? Did he speak to her, or in a news conference? Was there time for her to get a clarification, or not?

I'm not in television, and I wonder if someone who is could weigh in on that hazard of the trade.

 

So the president is taking heat and was asked about calls for his resignation for not reacting more quickly. Is that fair? Over the line? Too much Monday morning quarterbacking?

I don't understand why you have to go to a full lockdown. He's talking about barricades and all that.

Can't you do your best to warn every student that there was a shooting on campus and the gunman was not apprehended and cancel classes? At least the students would be more alert.

 

If there was a murder on the campus that morning and the shooter was at large, there should have been at least 10-15 extra police or security officers on campus and posted. At the least, they could have helped the communication or stopped him from chaining the doors shut.