Guest Blog: Columbine- The Media Coverage, Public Perception, and Legacy
By: Grace Holland, Middle Tennessee State University
On April 20, 1999, one of the most significant school-related tragedies occurred. Two students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, killed thirteen fellow classmates and injured many others at Columbine High School. Originally, the two shooters planned to bomb the school, but when that failed, they changed their plan to a shooting. While the Columbine shooting was not the first school shooting, it was a shocking turning point for the ways the media reported on crimes. The media coverage surrounding Columbine shaped the public perception and reaction to the tragedy while also establishing how to and not to report on school shootings. Though now looked to as a bad example, the media coverage surrounding Columbine established the tragedy as a common reference in the public consciousness.
At the time of the attack, media coverage focused on reporting the most information about the tragedy to the public as quickly as possible. While it is not uncommon for the media to rush information following a major event, the coverage of Columbine was often inaccurate or decontextualized due to a lack of available information. This lack of information led to sensationalized stories that would often praise or attack certain groups. In the weeks following the Columbine shootings, media coverage became less focused on the crime itself and instead on the shocking nature of what happened. While some outlets tried to correct previous inaccuracies, significant damage had already been done.
The Denver Post, one of the closest local news outlets to Columbine High School, published many articles following the shooting, with the earliest articles offering objective retellings of the events. However, subsequent articles from the week started to hone in on social cliques at the school in an attempt to figure out the “why” of the tragedy. An article published the day following the tragedy is a perfect example of how not to report on school shooting crimes. The Denver Post ran a story about a clique called the “Trench Coat Mafia,” describing the later-debunked group as being “...close-knit…interested in the occult, Adolf Hitler, and Marilyn Manson.” Claims like these were not only untrue but also harmful as they included references to musicians or board games, such as Dungeons and Dragons, as signs that children may be involved in serious crimes such as school shootings. Early articles like these created a moral hierarchy amongst those involved in the shooting, paving the way for stories about the “morally good” teenagers killed by the “morally bad” teenagers. While all of these articles are from the same outlet, they provide a good example of the overarching trend that was emerging following the attack, particularly within the school’s home state of Colorado.
On discussing the “morally good” teenagers, the media focused heavily on Christianity, as the shooters were said to have been involved in satanic practices. This morphed the already present “good versus bad” narrative into an emerging “christianity versus satanism” argument. Scholar Sarah M. Pike posits that Klebold and Harris were positioned as demonic not only as a reinforcement of the captivity narrative–a narrative that relies upon criminals being social or moral outcasts–but also as a means of exploring why they did it. Pike writes,”...because the Columbine shooters were privileged suburban white kids, they marked a shift in Americans’ understandings of deviant adolescents' identity and behavior.” If the shooter's behavior could not be blamed on a societal failing, such as poverty, then what could have been the cause? Confronting the uncomfortable fact that the students themselves were villains in this crime left people questioning their beliefs on who fits the profile of a school shooter. However, the shooters’ deaths meant there was no one alive to blame, which also meant there was no one alive to truly explain the killers’ motivations. This stirred conspiracy theories within certain groups ranging from terrorism fears to even the possibility that the killers were possessed by a demon. Conservative Christians, in particular, latched onto the story of Cassie Bernall. In the story, she bravely defied the shooters and proclaimed her belief in the Christian God before being killed, even leading to the publication of a book simply titled She Said Yes. However, this claim seems to have been debunked by an article in The Washington Post revealing that a search of the tapes from that day proves the famous line was actually uttered by another student, Valeen Schnurr, who survived the attack. This article, however, did not slow the spread of “Cassie’s” story as it is hard to make a martyr out of someone who is still alive. All of these reports were done in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, highlighting the main issue that arose when covering Columbine: who is a villain and who is a saint? This narrative became dangerous–as observed by Glenn Muschert– the coverage of Columbine positioned youth as being “...violent or as victims.” Criticizing this, Muschert said, “This perception…creates a culture of fear. Devoting so much coverage to reactions conveys a message that the reasons for the shootings were more important than the shootings.” The coverage of Columbine led to several unintended consequences, such as paving the way for crimes of imitation and solidifying the tragedy as a pop-culture reference.
So, how can the media right their wrongs in terms of their coverage of Columbine, and what is the legacy they hope to leave behind? Corrections of previous inaccuracies started back in 1999. A good example of this can be found in a New York Times article written in May of 1999 that serves as a sort of retrospective on the massacre. The article chronicles the graduation of the remaining members of the Class of 1999 and their attempts to move on from the tragedy and continue to live their lives. The article humanized the victims in a way that had been lost in the previous “good versus evil” rhetoric. Another notable example of this comes from Sue Klebold’s work as an activist and author following the tragedy. Sue is the mother of Dylan Klebold, one of the shooters, and she has spent the majority of her life shedding light on the events of the tragedy and helping others to process their grief.
Columbine survivors were expected to grieve quickly and get over the shooting as soon as the media had moved on. The media showed no interest in highlighting the uglier aspects of grief, making it nearly impossible for the community as a whole to heal from what had happened. This dismissal of the survivors’ grief was mentioned, especially during the 20th anniversary of the crime, resulting in the media facing a lot of criticism. The New York Times chose to respond to this criticism honestly and took a look at the changes that have happened in the ethics and standards of reporting in the years following. Reporters interviewed in conjunction with this article report feeling tasked to balance all the various aspects of tragedy that need to be reported on with “...the potential that too much attention could be seen as glorifying the attacker.” Since School shootings were not common at the time, there was no standard for reporting on them, and the consequence was that speculative reporting began to be taken as absolute fact.
In the years since the Columbine shooting, the United States has suffered an innumerable amount of instances of mass violence, which has caused a serious re-evaluation of how the media should effectively report on such delicate situations. Journalist Dave Cullen perhaps said it best: “The public expectation has changed,” which makes it more difficult to report inaccurately without being scrutinized.
The Columbine Massacre was an incredibly complex crime that had far-reaching effects on the community, the state of Colorado, the nation, and the coverage of mass violence in the media. In the years since, several positive changes have been made to reporting mass violence, but the harm done while handling Columbine can never truly be erased.
