COLUMN: Sniper coverage terrible

by Sean Misko

Daily Collegian

U-Wire

With suspects in custody for the D.C.-area snipings, the people of suburban Washington can collectively exhale in relief for now - so too can the American public, which for the past three weeks has been subjected to endless, round-the-clock coverage of the sniper.

Despite a general lack of hard facts to report, the news networks persisted in reporting on the case, filling their coverage with ominous theme songs and talking heads who knew as much about the sniper's motives as the average viewer. The end result of the coverage was not a more informed public, but rather one of the poorest displays of journalism in recent memory.

It's important to note that unlike other columnists for this publication, I don't discount the grave reality of the situation outside of Washington. Ten people are dead, the police generally had few leads and the sniper made it clear that he considered any person, even a child, to be a target. These facts alone constituted a significant news story, and the media were correct in devoting time to covering it. They do deserve credit for assisting law enforcement officers in communicating with the sniper, as it was this communication that eventually led to the recent breakthrough. This aside, we have to recognize that in their zeal to provide comprehensive coverage of the sniper story, the media ignored important journalistic principles, as well as basic common sense.

Topping the list of worst coverage is Fox News. Comments and questions from Fox anchors and reporters often displayed little forethought. Tuesday, after the most recent shooting, a Fox anchor declared to a guest expert, "This guy is a loser, wacko and a killer. I don't want to kiss up to him!" The anchor's comments were in response to the police's patient requests for the sniper to contact authorities. Apparently, the anchor thought antagonizing the killer would expedite his surrender. Maybe the anchor would like to retract her previous statements, given the recent arrests.

Rita Cosby, Fox News' senior Washington correspondent, compensated for Geraldo's inability to report something newsworthy. Seeking to inject some excitement into the endless drone of Fox's coverage, she sent a letter to the famed "Son of Sam" serial killer, in which she wrote, "Your personal story and spiritual growth have inspired me to write to you." Cosby continued, "You have a testimony that must be heard. . . . Our world is crying and you can help." Daniel Berkowitz was so touched that he sent Cosby a three-page reply in which he thanked her "for the kind things," she said.

Berkowitz wrote, "I am not sure if it is one person or two, if this is a tormented and raging psychopath or a terrorist. . ." But even more absurd than Cosby's decision to contact Berkowitz were several competing news organizations' decisions to report Cosby's pen-pal experience as a major story. Fox News' slogan states, "We report, you decide." Based on its sensational reporting, I hope viewers decide to change the channel.

CNN performed slightly better. While its anchors and reporters endlessly speculated, they did so apologetically. Focusing on matters of personal survival, CNN featured numerous experts who demonstrated to viewers what part of their car to dive behind should the sniper strike. One brilliant expert on CNN challenged viewers to go start a neighborhood-watch group if they didn't already have one. Apparently, a group of people wandering around a neighborhood with flashlights and camcorders would deny the sniper easy targets.

Connie Chung, perhaps after hearing of Cosby's stellar journalistic work, elected this week to feature a multi-part series about previous serial killers and their eventual demise. While fascinating, the stories belonged on the History Channel, not a news network. Finally, while interviewing several experts, CNN host Larry King, asked a guest, "Would he [the sniper] be inclined to watch this program?" The response from the former FBI profiler: "I think so, Larry." If only the police had checked the membership records of the local Larry King fan club, they just might have found the killer sooner.

Veteran TV journalist Walter Cronkite evaluated the media's performance best. After 40 minutes of CNN sniper coverage, he said, "I don't think the national audience need[s] to know all that was carried, hour after hour, on the national networks about the sniper attacks." Noting that the story was "important for various reasons . . . besides being sensational," Cronkite challenged the media to start a "serious discussion" on several issues, including gun control, ballistic weapons fingerprinting and homeland security. Such discussions, he said, "are important . . . to our country and our future."

Also essential, however, is reporting other major stories. In less than two weeks, the balance of power in Washington will be decided. North Korea's recent nuclear revelation presents serious challenges to the Bush administration's new national security strategy. And a terrorist attack in Bali, which killed more than 180 people - many times the D.C. death toll - has reaffirmed the continued threat that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups pose. Indeed, there's no shortage of big stories for reporters to cover.

What have been missing are quality journalists willing and able to devote their time to examining these important issues in a responsible and balanced manner.