Section 8. Recommendations for the Media

Rights and Obligations of the Media
Recommendations for Executives
Planning for Media Coverage of School Violence
During and After School Violence Crises
Guidelines for Media in Covering Ongoing Crisis Situations
Guidelines for Journalists and Reporters Covering Bomb Threat Stories

All forms of communication media (e.g., print, television, radio, computer, and film) can play an important role in helping to prevent violence in the schools. They can also help limit the adverse impact that results when violence does occur.

Unfortunately, the media can also contribute to the problem. Exposure to excessive violence:

• Increases the chances that at least some of those exposed to the media will learn and/or contemplate using violent responses. "Copycat" suicides, shootings, and bomb threats sometime follow extensive media coverage or depictions of those events.
• Desensitizes viewers to the horrors of violence and may increase their proficiency committing it. Many of the same types of shooting simulation exercises used by law enforcement and the military to train people for situations where they may have to kill are being sold to children as video games. Some of the electronic media games available to children award extra points to players for engaging in simulated antisocial acts.
• Exaggerates the magnitude of the real threat. This could result in people fearing for their own or their children's safety in situations where little danger is actually present.

Rights and Obligations of the Media

1. Recommendations for Executives in Television, Radio, Internet, Recording, Electronic Game, and Film Industries.

b. Encourage their professional and trade associations to hold seminars pertaining to their industry's ethical and social responsibilities.

c. Refrain from producing and airing advertisements, lyrics, films, games, or programs likely to contribute to the commission of youth violence or other antisocial acts.

d. Address the actual consequences of violence when it is depicted, instead of trivializing or glorifying it.

e. During time slots when children are likely to be viewing, avoid showing programs that may contribute to their committing violence or other antisocial acts.

f. Develop and support television programs, recordings, movies, and video games that promote positive social interactions and values for children of all ages.

g. Promote, use, display, and enforce rating systems that help parents/ guardians select media appropriate for their children.

h. Support efforts to make sure that media rating systems address messages conveyed, as well as the choice of words and images presented.

i. Support efforts to make V-Chip technology a successful way for parents/guardians to help prevent their children from being exposed to inappropriate violence.

j. Initiate anti-violence programs. (MTV and the American Psychological Association joined forces to create "Fight for Your Rights: Take a Stand against Violence.")

2. Planning for Media Coverage of School Violence

a. Establish at each newsroom and station codes of conduct for reporting and broadcasting incidents like school violence.

b. Encourage their professional and trade associations to hold sessions on the media's ethical responsibilities in this area.

c. Provide in-depth coverage regarding steps school communities can take to reduce hazards of school violence. Make copies of the articles and programs available free of charge to schools and non-profit organizations.

d. Provide local coverage, public service announcements, and features that provide points of contact for youth counselors, substance abuse treatment, suicide prevention, and other social or mental health programs, and encourage friends and family to refer youth who appear troubled to those programs.

e. Encourage investigative reporting that identifies people or situations contributing to the risk of school violence. Examples of possible stories include:

1. School administrators and local government officials who fail to take adequate protection measures.
2. Legislators who have taken positions related to school violence against the public interest.
3. Individuals or businesses in their community who knowingly sell weapons illegally either to children or to adults purchasing weapons for children.

f. Provide law enforcement or school officials with timely information acquired from media contacts that might prevent an incident of school violence from occurring.

g. Report on, and influence, public support for taking needed corrective actions.

h. Establish "win-win" partnerships with police for covering crises like school violence. In Boston, television stations have voluntarily agreed to share footage supplied by media pool on-ground and helicopter cameras in certain hostage situations. This way competing camera crews do not add to the confusion. The stations also agreed not to air live coverage while incidents were occurring that could aid offenders, endanger deployed police personnel, or harm people trapped on the premises. In return, police provide better locations for media pool cameras and more frequent updates.

3. During and After School Violence Crises

a. Present coverage of school violence that is factual and balanced, including information about its prevalence compared to other crimes and whether it is on the rise or decline.

b. Address the larger context of school violence, such as how students, schools, and communities have been affected.

c. Inform the public what steps are being taken to help people handle the crisis.

d. Consider the possible motivations of people who engage in violence in the schools and refrain from rewarding those actions. For example, frequent displays of offender names and pictures may convey to potential "copycat" offenders that this is one way to quickly and easily achieve fame. Depicting offenders as "victims" who were out to "right a wrong" might falsely convey that school shootings are an effective way for students to redress grievances.

e. Communicate helpful information to victims and concerned citizens. Examples include:

1. Helping law enforcement acquire information from the public needed to identify or locate offenders.
2. Informing parents/guardians where victim information can be obtained.
3. Letting the public know how they can help (e.g., donate blood, money, services, etc.).
4. Informing victims about the importance and locations of grief counseling and other post-event services.
5. Informing students, parents/ guardians, teachers and staff about any alterations to school schedules.

f. Utilize designated public information officers as the sole source of official information about crisis incidents, instead of seeking it from other personnel at crisis locations.

g. Be careful not to distract law enforcement or other emergency response personnel or impede them or their equipment. This includes use of the air space above the location.

h. Respect the privacy rights of victims and the people connected to them.

i. Offer to supply helicopters and other equipment or services that might aid police or other emergency providers.

j. Promptly provide law enforcement with information acquired from media contacts that might lead to the arrest of an offender before either that person or someone else is also harmed.

Guidelines for Media in Covering Ongoing Crisis Situations

In covering an ongoing crisis situation, journalists are advised to:

• Always assume that the hostage taker, gunman or terrorist has access to the reporting.
• Avoid describing with words or showing with still photography and video any information that could divulge the tactics or positions of SWAT team members.
• Fight the urge to become a player in any standoff, hostage situation or terrorist incident. Journalists should become personally involved only as a last resort and with the explicit approval of top news management and the consultation of trained hostage negotiators on the scene.
• Be forthright with viewers, listeners or readers about why certain information is being withheld if security reasons are involved.
• Seriously weigh the benefits to the public of what information might be given out versus what potential harm that information might cause. This is especially important in live reporting of an on-going situation.
• Strongly resist the temptation to telephone a gunman or hostage taker. Journalists generally are not trained in negotiation techniques, and one wrong question or inappropriate word could jeopardize someone’s life. Furthermore, just calling in could tie up phone lines or otherwise complicate communication efforts of the negotiators.
• Notify authorities immediately if a hostage taker or terrorist calls the newsroom. Also, have a plan ready for how to respond.
• Challenge any gut reaction to “go live” from the scene of a hostage-taking crisis, unless there are strong journalistic reasons for a live, on-the-scene report. Things can go wrong very quickly in a live report, endangering lives or damaging negotiations. Furthermore, ask if the value of a live, on-the-scene report is really justifiable compared to the harm that could occur.
• Give no information, factual or speculative, about a hostage taker’s mental condition, state of mind or reasons for actions while a standoff is in progress. The value of such information to the audience is limited, and the possibility of such characterizations exacerbating an already dangerous situation are quite real.
• Give no analyses or comments on a hostage taker’s or terrorist’s demands. As bizarre or ridiculous (or even legitimate) as such demands may be, it is important that negotiators take all demands seriously.
• Keep news helicopters out of the area where the standoff is happening, as their noise can create communication problems for negotiators and their presence could scare a gunman to deadly action.
• Do not report information obtained from police scanners. If law enforcement personnel and negotiators are compromised in their communications, their attempts to resolve a crisis are greatly complicated.
• Be very cautious in any reporting on the medical condition of hostages until after a crisis is concluded. Also, be cautious when interviewing hostages or released hostages while a crisis continues.
• Exercise care when interviewing family members or friends of those involved in standoff situations. Make sure the interview legitimately advances the story for the public and is not simply conducted for the shock value of the emotions conveyed or as a conduit for the interviewee to transmit messages to specific individuals.
• Go beyond the basic story of the hostage taking or standoff to report on the larger issues behind the story, be it the how and why of what happened, reports on the preparation and execution of the SWAT team, or the issues related to the incident.

In covering a pending raid or law enforce-ment action, journalists are advised to:

• Be extremely cautious to not compromise the secrecy of officials’ planning and execution. If staking out a location where a raid will occur or if accompanying officers, reporters and photographers should demonstrate great caution in how they act, where they go, and what clues they might inadvertently give that might compromise the execution of the raid. They should check and double-check planning efforts.

Guidelines for Journalists and Reporters Covering Bomb Threat Stories

• Ask yourself these questions: What is my journalistic duty in reporting this story? What do our viewers need to know? What is the threat to life or property? What are the consequences of the event itself? How significant is the evacuation and the interruption to normal life in your community? What is the impact this event has on the ability of law enforcement or emergency crews to respond to other calls? What else is this story about? What is the story behind the story? (In some cases, racial slurs and threats have been sprayed on school walls.)
• What are the possible consequences of my actions and decisions? Reporting a false threat could lead to copycat threats, or reporting arrests might discourage such threats by showing the consequences for threatening others.
• Other consequences might include raising the public’s level of insecurity even when it is not warranted. Repeated broadcasting of bomb hoaxes can have the effect of “crying wolf,” and the public becomes less responsive when actual danger arises. But the reporting on the volume and range of threats could inform viewers and listeners about the pressures police and schools officials are under. It could be important for the public to understand why officials react as they do.
• How could you justify your decisions about where and how you play stories about bomb threats in your newscasts? How do you explain your decisions to your staff and to your viewers? How much discussion have you had in your newsroom about your coverage? What experts or persons outside your newsroom could you contact to get their perspectives about how you should treat this story?
• Be careful about the tone of your coverage. Avoid words like “chaos,” “terror,” and “mayhem.” They are subjective words. Play it straight. Tone down your teases and leads and graphics. The tone of what you report should not contradict the careful reporting of facts you include in your stories. Think carefully before “going live” in covering these stories. You have less editorial control in live situations. The emphasis on live coverage may warp the attention these stories deserve. A lead story carries different weight than a story that is deeper in the newscast. How can you justify the positioning of your coverage?
• Cover the process more than the events. What thought are you giving to the bigger issues involved in this story? How easy is it for schools, the phone company, or cops to track down a threatening caller? How seriously are violators treated? Have you ever followed one of these cases through the legal system to find out what happens? How many bomb threats did police handle last year? How many resulted in prosecution? How many of those prosecuted went to jail or were actually punished? What was the extent of the punishment? Do your schools have caller ID systems in place? Do they or should they record incoming phone calls?
• Minimize harm. We sometimes cause harm in the process of performing our journalistic duty, but it should be only the harm we can justify. Special care should be taken when covering juveniles. You should carefully consider whether placing a prank phone call warrants naming a juvenile. In one instance in upstate New York this week, a TV station could not talk with the juvenile suspected of placing the prank phone call, so the station interviewed the suspect’s teen-age brother. What harm do we cause by sending a news photographer to a school that has been threatened by a caller?