Last Thursday in Alexandria, La., a man shot himself in the head. Suicide happens everyday, yet it is still a taboo subject that people refrain from talking about because of its unfortunate end. However, for Sheriff’s Deputy Paul Brossard, his sudden and gory end was televised live by the local news stations. Brossard killed his wife, then shot himself, seeing suicide as the only solution.
The evening news is becoming more and more like an episode of “Cops.” The news should inform the public about these events, not let us live them.
Is this news that needs to be displayed over the airwaves? The only reason most people heard about the story is because it caught the attention of the national media due to the sensitive nature of the footage.
Although this type of graphic footage isn’t a regular segment of the news, it wasn’t the first suicide that was televised. In 1987 Pennsylvania State Treasurer R. Budd Dwyer shot himself during a press conference. The footage of his death was televised and some newspapers ran photos of his head exploding.
What is news and where does one draw the line? I am positive that many viewers felt that when the gun was fired, they weren’t going to see a man blow his head off on the evening news. Is this the ground-breaking coverage that America wants to see, and is the media going to forget what is ethical and provide it?
Although the footage of the suicide wasn’t broadcast nationally, the local audience did get to view the event live—unprecedented in America.
This incident sparked my interest and made me think. What is news? Is it a suicide situation that will help a station get the top rating for the week by broadcasting it live, no matter how gory?
My quest for the answers began by finding out what the word “news” meant. So I looked it up in my new American Heritage Dictionary, which defined “news” as information about recent events. That definition seemed really broad to me, so I continued to search, finally returning to the first journalism textbook I bought. Looking through the text provided me with the information that I needed.
The text didn’t give a concrete definition, however it offered a set of six criteria that allows one to make his or her own determination on whether something is newsworthy or not.
The six criteria in determining the newsworthiness of a story are: timeliness, proximity, conflict, prominence, consequence and human interest. All six ingredients supported the broadcast of this type news story, so again I was baffled. I don’t understand why there isn’t more of this type of story in the media.
Is it because news stations aren’t able to arrive at the news site in time to catch the violent end of many stories today, or are news organizations making decisions not to show death as it happens?
This is an ethical question, which could change easily from person to person depending on the accepted train of thought. Right now, from the way that news is brought to the public, I don’t think that we are far away from this type of news, where live shots of death become commonplace.
The media is too willing to compromise its ethics and broadcast anything just to get high ratings and beat its competitors. This makes the media seem insensitive to what the public thinks and wants to see.
Someone’s suicide—no matter who it is—shouldn’t be shown without editing or a delay in the broadcast. This would protect unsuspecting viewers from this unnecessary illustration of death.
Ethically, this question will have to be answered by the individuals in charge of the station on whether a story will be broadcast. Although a story about a local sheriff’s deputy killing himself is definitely news in Alexandria, La., residents shouldn’t be subjected to events of this violent and destructive nature on television. Although no one was forcing viewers to undergo the trauma that one could suffer from watching something like that on television, it could scar one for life.
