Brief #7: Exploiting A News Story

Being a media analyst, or should I say having a job in general, is an extreme conflict of ethics. On one hand, you want to set values and examples for those who look up to you. You use the media as an outlet to teach, voice your opinions, and create awareness for whatever topic you choose. But on the other hand, being woke doesn't always pay the bills. You may find yourself in a serious moral bind, but overall it is your decision to publicize whatever you say no matter who you work for.
School shootings are no laughing matter, and should be dealt with delicately and respectfully. The problem with 21st century media is that everything is or will be used as an analogy or message. The Florida school massacre left hearts broken and words unspoken across America, and not too long after we hear the usual speeches and condolences that are supposed to help everyone's grieving process move along a bit faster. During the dramatic live interview of a student who unfortunately had to witness the murder of her best friend, the audience cringed from the obvious despair she displayed from just the first question. 

The amount of exposure an event may get is debated regularly between news organizations. The touchy topics spring broadly across a variety of murders, terrorist activity, rape, war, etc. Believe it or not, a mangled body can be way too gruesome for the viewers even in this day and age. A common thought that everyone seems to come back to as we advance in technology and personal device usage came down to "should they air images of mass shooters going about their ghastly actions — a dilemma posed by the 1999 atrocity at Columbine High, where the gunmen were captured on security cameras, and raised again at Parkland, when cellphone videos emerged of children diving for cover amid the sound of gunshots?" 

Columbine Shooting

Florida School Massacre

According to The Washington Post, the comments went way left on social media as they bashed the NBC reporters for placing "a vulnerable teenager, perhaps still in shock, on national TV without apparently knowing the extent of her trauma." If fact The Washington Post raised a very vital question to today's society: "Where’s the line between informing the public and mining the horror for ratings and clicks?" Was there ever an extent, or are we constantly taking advantage of fragile conditions? In a separate theory, people could be overreacting. Although she is hurting, we will never know of how serious her mental stability was actually damaged. It could mean something extremely important today, but not nearly as much as tomorrow which could be why the hosts just dive in nose first.