<p>Anyone with thoughts? Anyone with experience of how media eventually backed off of such an event in time? Are there any laws that allow a college to say "please respect our privacy - no more."</p>
<p>The coverage of Charles Whitman at UT-Austin seemed to play out reasonably fast, but that was the before the age of media overkill.</p>
<p>There is the 1st Amendment and the argument of "the public's right to know." I know that when NBC showed the images etc from the scumbag, I decided to try and not patronize any NBC advertiser. I also did not watch since you can't have it both ways.</p>
<p>On the news tonight, VT states that media will NOT be allowed on campus starting tomorrow. Reportedly, the school will provide tight security to keep reporters off campus.</p>
<p>Certainly don't blame VT for that decision ^^ - as the students return to class and what could be some of the most difficult days ahead. It does not need to be in the public eye - they will be grieving this for a very long time and enough on their plates right now.</p>
<p>Media - stay away!</p>
<p>For the most part the media covers most heavily what most people are interested in, and the slaughter at VT certainly qualified about that. Personally, I couldn't stop watching and reading news reports for days afterward. Its only human interest to want to know who that killer was and why he did it. The media followed up on that impulse. For the most part it did that responsibly, I think. </p>
<p>One complaint I had is that there was too little emphasis on the good guys. Evil is fascinating, but I've always been fascinated by the courage of ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances. I heard and read some--but not enough--about the professor who barred the doors to the killer at the cost of his own life, of the teachers who alrerted everyone she could that the kid was nuts. Its like after 9/11 when all the small craft in NY Harbor headed towards Ground Zero, just the opposite of what you'd think. Everybody didn't try to get away, they tried to help. But journalism is built on conflict and news editors too often think altruism is boring. </p>
<p>The responsible national press will respect an individual's privacy, as they have done by not giving the full names of some students and sources. But a whole community's? Respecting he privacy of 26,000 people is a little far-fetched. Some families were upset at the Cho videos, but NBC was right to release them. I don't see how they couldn't, especially since they contacted the authorities when they got them. Some families were offended by showing them. But those videos were a legitimate story and those families' feelings were secondary. And we certainly do not know what NBC chose NOT to make public. </p>
<p>But even if the entire VT community wants privacy, a responsible news editor would tell his reporters to go to VT and get a story now IF there is still a story to get. There may not be another one. There will almost definitely be a 3 months later or 6 months later or one year after story, however. And if there are some extraordinary development (say an accomplice is discovered or something equally spectacular) the media will follow it no matter what VT wants. The story comes first, if there’s a real story to get.</p>