By Tammy Ruhle, On-line Forty-Niner April 29, 1997
Gunfire blasts back and forth as the good guys return fire from the bad guys.
The scene ends when the bank robbers lay dying in a pool of their own blood, automatic weapons at their sides.
No, this is not a scene from the latest Quentin Tarentino flick. It is the 6 o'clock news. But, it is what is keeping news afloat in the growing competition for American's shrinking attention span according to Thursday's Journalism Day panel in a disscussion on sensationalism and social responsibility.
Though critics claim that the reason behind violence in media coverage is money, panelists, including two Pulitzer Prize winners, maintain that this is a misconception.
"Rarely is the motive money," said Scott Hollowell, a panelist and news director for the Orange County News. "In fact, the O.J. trial nearly bankrupt stations [because of overtime and satellite hookups]."
Still, reaction from the public, against what has been termed sensationalistic media, has been strong and become increasingly personal
"[Reporters] fear repercussions," said John Hollon, a panelist, editor of Fancy Publications and former managing editor of the Orange County Register. "I've gotten death threats. I get [threatening] phone calls at home, late at night, and that scares my wife. I used to be proud to have my phone number listed in the phone book but not anymore."
Ultimately, the goal of today's media is to present the news in all aspects, according to panelists.
"Anything less [than complete coverage, including graphic photos,] would be unethical," according to Ricardo Chavira, a panelist, Pulitzer Prize winner and current editor for the Dallas Morning News. "What it comes down to is a judgment call."
Judgment indeed, which means separating the essential from the sensational, according to Ric Trent, publisher for WAVE Newspapers.
"I don't have trouble with [photos of the dead members of] Heaven's Gate. But, what I do have trouble with is [covering] Dennis Rodman in a wedding gown," Trent said.