Two tragedies have occurred recently, one local and one not. We had the mass shooting of the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and there was an explosion caused by gas in Pottstown killing a family that had recently moved there to escape some of the negative aspects of city life.
Trying to understand the situation in each situation has dominated recent news to answer the questions of “Why?” or “How could this have happened?”
Whenever there is a tragedy in our lives, our first need is to understand the answer to these two questions. Understanding promotes the ability to move forward. It doesn’t lessen the pain that is incurred by the tragedy itself.
Understanding produces a form of closure in the same way that a religious service such as a memorial service is meant to achieve. The only thing that seems to promote movement forward Is that understanding does not diminish pain, but it does move us forward like looking into the rear-view mirror of a car where you can look back and still see that car behind you traveling too close to the automobile in which you are driving. You can still move forward, but every time that you glance at that mirror, you still see that car too close behind you. It is right there, and never really goes away from sight. Pretty soon it does not surprise you to see it there, but you are forced to accept the fact that it will be with you for the whole journey to your destination.
That is what grief is like. Grief is the price of love. It changes but never leaves.
I have mixed emotions about the press coverage of such tragic events as covered in the mass shooting in Uvalde. What is the motive of CNN’s coverage? CNN majors in bringing events directly into our homes for us to see what is happening on the ground. Are they giving their twenty-four/seven coverage to promote understanding of what occurred at the school so that we as a nation can move forward? Perhaps.
I am put off, however, by the “first to get the story and the best coverage.” Is their motive about ratings and doing what other news stations can’t do? If you watch CNN over the course of an extended period, the “best” material gets repeated over and over again. Are they trying to shape the narrative for gun control moving forward?
I cringe when I witness the interviews of the families and children directly affected by the shootings as well as members of this close-knit community. The interviews of the children, in particular, produce anger within me. How is the nation helped by seeing children choking back their tears? All you need to know that is a statement of the obvious is the children are traumatized and will likely remember this moment for the rest of their lives.
Empathy asks the question, “What would we want if we were in their shoes?” Since I have spent many years in the middle of tragic situations, I know that people trying to live through those traumatic moments want those words, “Respect our privacy!” as a guideline.
EA as a school went through tragedies, some of which received local news attention. Our policy was to have our Director of Public Relations meet with the press in one building as you entered campus. One person was answering all the questions that the press had in their repertoire of fact finding. One adult voice was responding. That was all that was needed to produce understanding. However, some press would always sneak on to our campus to get a student’s view. The students would be told how we were handling things. They got it! When notified our security people would usher a, sometimes reluctant, reporter off campus. This could be a model for other tragic situations and the press who want understanding and not ratings.
I have questions for CNN that I don’t think have ever been asked. They are different questions from “What do I need to know to understand what happened in this tragedy?” They are, “Is nothing sacred? Don’t you know the most sacred time in a person’s life that requires privacy is during tragedy? Doesn’t this moment require a sacred conversation with people they know or professionals to assist them? How are your questions helping THEM to move forward when they can barely speak? What are your motives?”
Understanding, yes! Intrusion into the privacy of others, no!
Comments