FOLLOW US

Once again, it is crucial to remember that social media did not exist during this era, and that the closest site resembling a social media platform at this time was Six Degrees, a site used for blogging and instant messaging (Hale, 2015). The analysis revealed that Columbine’s media coverage consisted mainly of newspaper articles, radio broadcasts, and television reports. Due to this lack of immediacy, the public did not receive information as quickly about the shooting, ultimately causing both rumors to spread and individuals to remain unaware of the incident (Shepard, n.d.). Interestingly, media coverage on Columbine hit its peak on the second day after the shooting took place (Schildkraut & Muschert, 2013). This would not be the case today, due to the neverending news cycle and rise of popular social media platforms.

Columbine’s coverage also revealed one large difference from today’s mass shooting coverage, being that the news reports did not include any type of video from the actual shooting besides the school’s security footage. Today, it is common to see videos posted on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat from the viewpoint of victims involved in the actual shooting.

In 1999, students did not have cellphones with cameras capable of taking video. Instead, they mainly used beepers, pagers, and landlines to communicate (Jones, 2009). It is important to note that a majority of the images included in news coverage back then were shots of the scene outside by photographers and news crews (Arenstein, 2018). This difference partially explains why media coverage of Columbine was delayed. Because news reporters and news stations did not have images and videos of the shooting itself, they had to collect accurate information through phone calls and interviews with victims and witnesses (Mannino, 2012).

Media coverage of the Columbine massacre would look different if the shooting had happened in today’s digital world. Most likely, the incident would take over the digital space, producing millions of posts, tweets, and shares. The public would be notified on their smartphones instantly and videos from the shooting would be replayed all over television news. After analyzing the media coverage of a mass shooting in 1999, one is able to recognize just how much of a role social media has played in the amplification of news in these crisis situations. For this reason, it is instructive to compare Columbine’s media coverage to Virginia Tech’s media coverage, the difference being that Virginia Tech occurred eight years later when major social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter became popular.

Virginia Tech

On April 16, 2007, in Blacksburg, Virginia, 32 people were shot and killed on Virginia Tech’s campus. The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, was a senior at the time. This shooting took place over the course of two and a half hours, with the first and second half of the shooting separated by Cho’s decision to stop and mail a “confession” package to NBC News (“How the Virginia Tech,” 2007). After studying the media coverage that resulted from this horrific event, it is clear that the coverage reflects the media era in which the shooting took place. By 2007, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were being used in full force and a majority of the public received news updates from websites, blogs, and other online resources.