Columbine

by Dave Cullen

The media grew fond of the adjective “toxic.” Apparently, Columbine was a horrible place. It was terrorized by a band of reckless jock lords and ruled by an aristocracy of snotty rich white kids in the latest Abercrombie & Fitch line. Some of that was true—which is to say, it was high school. But Columbine came to embody everything noxious about adolescence in America. A few students were happy to see some ugly truths about their high school exposed. Most were appalled. The media version was a gross caricature of how they saw it, and of what they thought they had described.

We should not stop reporting these, we should rethink how. Diminish the killer. We must name and show him, but how do we justify the endless repetition? How about once and done? Once per show? Deflect the spotlight, to relegate him to a dim supporting role. Victim focus takes more effort, but Anderson Cooper has been running that experiment successfully since 2012. Each attack, his show does brief updates on the killers, then most of the hour on victims. They avoid naming or showing the killer. It’s been remarkably easy, and remains CNN’s highest-rated show. Later, Megyn Kelly at Fox News and CNN’s New Day adopted Cooper’s approach. Where are Charlie Rose and Diane Sawyer? Scott Pelley, Rachel Maddow, Jorge Ramos, Lester Holt, Gwen Ifill, and David Muir? Where are the executives at NPR, the New York Times, and the TV networks? Scaling back coverage, that will be the tough nut. But it will be the most significant. These are big stories, but 24/7 is exclusively about ratings. Change might dent those a few nights a year. Worth the price? This is up to the journalism profession to sort out. Disagreement over how to respond is reasonable. Pretending we’re not part of it is a fantasy. And deplorable.