Media outlets cautious with Newtown 911 recordings

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

(CNN) — Wednesday’s release of audio recordings of the 911 calls from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings forced news organizations to make difficult — and sometimes unpopular — decisions about what to broadcast and what to hold back.

News executives said they were considering both the wishes of the community where the school was located — Newtown, Connecticut — and the journalistic impulse to report on one of the biggest news stories of the past year.

The recordings were made available to news organizations Wednesday afternoon.

CNN aired portions of the recordings in a report Thursday evening, including a 911 call from the school’s secretary. The report was also posted online.

The network’s report, preceded by anchor Jake Tapper’s warning of disturbing content, also included a call from a teacher who had been shot in the foot and one from a janitor who relayed information between police and dispatchers.

Immediately after the airing, a CNN legal analyst said the decision to air the recordings was wrong.

“Other than pure titillation, I don’t see any public interest served by this whatsoever,” Mark Geragos said.

One of CNN’s competitors, Fox News Channel, also televised some audio clips about an hour after the tapes were released.

Fox anchor Shepard Smith told viewers the network would “not be airing the most gut-wrenching moments.”

CBS said it would use some audio clips, but would not present all of the material or anything including gunshot sounds.

ABC and NBC decided not to broadcast or post any of the recordings, but said they would report on the contents.

In an internal e-mail to staffers, NBC said that “it is fine for all programs and the website to report on the controversy related to the release of the tapes and include quotes or information from the tapes, but without audio.”

Of course, in the digital age, the 911 tapes are accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. A number of news publishers that linked to the audio, including BuzzFeed, incorporated warnings that the audio included “disturbing content.”

Many reporters and media analysts said the tapes were inherently newsworthy, but acknowledged that the calls from the school were emotionally wrenching to hear, particularly for people with ties to the shooting.

One Newtown official, Board of Selectmen member Patricia Llodra, said Wednesday morning that the release of the tapes “will create a new layer of pain for many in the Newtown community.”

Balancing act

While often criticized for using 911 tapes to exploit human tragedy, news organizations have an obligation to fight for the release of documents and records that can serve important public ends, such as disclosing improper conduct by authorities or insufficient response to emergencies or other issues, said Al Tompkins, senior faculty member for broadcast and online journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank.

Tompkins said Wednesday that editors had to listen to the recordings and decide whether the news value was sufficient to warrant using them.

“The ethical place to be is to listen and to make your decision on two things,” he said. “What is your journalism value in using or not using these things, and two, would the good from using them outweigh the harm?”

Emergency calls can often prove newsworthy, Tompkins said, as in the case of the Trayvon Martin shooting, in which a struggle and the fatal shot could be heard in the background of one call.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Wednesday, after CNN aired the clips, that he probably would have opted not to use the recordings, but said their release by the judge was the correct decision.

“I’m not sure how much this adds to the overall story, but I definitely think this is a decision for journalists to make, not for the government to make, about what gets broadcast and what doesn’t,” he said.

Too much pain?

Llodra, the Newtown official, said in a blog post that as they cover the 911 tapes and the first anniversary of the shootings, reporters should “recognize that there is great personal pain in this event and little public good to be garnered through the general release.”

She continued, “Imagine yourself as a parent of a child who was killed, or a family member of one of the six educators. Imagine yourself as a teacher or staff member in that building desperate to save the lives of children. Imagine you are the parent of a child who was able to escape. Then ask yourself, media person, what is the public good and how do I balance that against the hurt?”

By Brian Stelter and Michael Pearson, CNN

™ & © 2013 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.


  • ByeByeToTheRite

    I’m not for revealing anything sensitive or personal i.e. somebody who was killed calling for help, etc. BUT MOST of this concern is actually CENSORSHIP to make sure Americans don’t get too much of a dose of the reality of gun violence in this country. The NRA is probably driving most of the censorship – my, we don’t want people to hear FIRST HAND the horrors powerful weapons do in this country. If people hear the truth, they may demand more gun regulation! So play the tapes, witness first-hand the tragedy of guns, and then call your state rep and tell him/her WE’VE HAD ENOUGH.

    • ChrisH

      Seriously? Before you get much more ignorant. I am not a republican, I’m not a member of the NRA, nor am I a “tea bagger”. First off death, murder, and tragedy are in fact awful terrible things but unfortunately will never stop.

      However in light of these acts if you were to do some basic research into the ideology that you quote so generically you would see that we (the U.S.) are very low on the list of countries suffering from firearm murders and considering that we lead the world in gun ownership that in itself is an accomplishment. Our firearm murder rate is 2.79 per 100,000 with a gun ownership of 88 out of 100 people. If you actually do the equation of the number of firearm murders divided by the population you have less than a fraction of a percent chance of dieing. In fact you have a higher chance of being killed in a car accident, dieing due to doctor treatment, and about the same chance of dieing from the flu. That’s right the flu is just as deadly as your “evil” guns (which is very low).

      The problem with ideology is that most of you “gun control” idiots is the fact that you are so willing to ignore facts because they serve to undermine your entire theories. Guns do not determine crime and violence, people do. People choose to kill. Now if you were arguing that this country is terible for caring for those with mental handicaps and disorders than I would support your ideas and even agree with you.

      Now let’s look at another dynamic. Why do criminals do bad things? Because they are criminals. They choose to break the law. So if we took all the guns away from those who could legally purchase them and stopped selling them in stores and made it illegal to purchase and/or own them do you think criminals would be so obliged to follow the laws that they so frequently break? Maybe a few would but many would seize the opportunity to turn it into an advantage and then who do you rely on? The police who took 4 minutes to respond to a school shooting? In that 4 minutes a mentally deranged killer killed almost 30 people. Had their been someone with a gun in that school who had all the proper training and credentials Adam Lanza wouldn’t have been able to get 5 steps through the front door he had just shot out and almost 30 people would certainly not have died that day.

      People like you, the media and your worthless politicians make it a point to try and villianize guns so that the under informed masses might believe you but you don’t fool anyone. Laws are made to be broken and that is why we have criminals, because they choose to do bad and evil things and when sanity is gone your mindless deranged killers come out and do even more evil things. Why do you think these types of shootings occur in blue states and in places where there is not a high presence of armed citizens? It boils down to a sick and twisted individual who wants to inflict a mass casualty scenario. He can’t inflict a mass cas if he’s facing an armed and trained adversary so he picks a target rich environment that can’t fight back. Why not shoot up a police station? Maybe a courthouse? Because there are people with guns there who will shoot you in the face.

      So go ahead and offer your under informed and non fact based idealistic argument to counter my opinion. The problem with people like you is that you ignore facts in light of a strong emotional response. If I can’t out smart you I’ll simply get mad and shout at you. It’s actually pretty sad.

Comments are closed.

Notice: you are using an outdated browser. Microsoft does not recommend using IE as your default browser. Some features on this website, like video and images, might not work properly. For the best experience, please upgrade your browser.