Subdued coverage

The New York Times ran a front page story on the Northern Illinois shootings, but it was just barely above the fold and in the far-left column. The dominant photo belonged to a story on the violence in Kenya. The only photo with the story was printed with the jump on page 13. This seems to ignore the conventional wisdom that all news is local. There's no denying that the situation in Kenya is both tragic and important, but the average American is likely to be far more interested in a tragedy occurring only a few hours away.

The online version was a little different, with a photo of mourning students and a multimedia presentation.

The other question I had of the editorial decision to downplay the shootings had more to do with culture than news values. I was shocked when I picked up the State News and saw the top story. I mentioned to a friend of mine about keeping cell phones on in class because of it, to receive any emergency alerts, trying to approach the subject delicately. She said that she thought she had heard something about the shootings, lightly, as if it were of no real concern.

Throughout the day the edgy atmosphere that followed Virginia Tech was conspicuously absent. That led me to wonder: is it all about body counts? Are we so coarsened that single-digit fatalities don't shock us anymore?

The media are frequently blamed for everything from loose sexual morals to encouraging copycat crimes. For my part, I don't believe that any one cultural entity can be blamed for such complex problems. I do think, however, that the media are obligated to cover tragedies as tastefully as possible while still treating them as (fundamentally human) tragedies. Look for a future post on "tragedy blindness."