In this post I will be examining how new media such as Twitter and Wikipedia play a role in the way spree murder tragedies are covered by the mass media. In the case of the Virginia Tech shooting, there were a number of on-site reports being spread via twitter, feeding and bolstering the coverage by international broadcast news associations. Cell phone photographs and videos served to feed the public’s interest in the carnage that was unfolding on campus, every minute a new terrifying image or twitter update chilling them to the bone. 24 hour broadcasts became satiated with these images and reports, the mass media attempting to milk the tragic story for all it’s worth. These tactics are not just exploitative, but prove to cause a number of copy-cat murder cases within the coming weeks and months.

Charlie Booker addressed the issue on his Newswipe broadcast, highlighting the way nonstop media coverage of the issue serves no purpose but to satisfy the public’s interest in being entertained by the news. The video shows a BBC interview with Dr. Park Dietz, a forensic psychologist, who maps out the problems with the media’s coverage of the events. Some of the issues include plastering news broadcasts with images of the killer and giving body counts, which only serve to portray the killer as a sort of anti-hero.

Mass media often attempts to shift the focus from those who were murdered onto the murderer’s reason for committing the crime. Many reports seek to delve deep into the killer’s psyche in an attempt to pinpoint the factors that are to blame. One example of this would be the Columbine massacres, where media focused largely on the external influences that would have caused the killers to go on their murderous rampage. Michael Moore addresses this in his documentary Bowling for Columbine. 

“Presumably he wanted to make a name for himself, which is why I won’t identify him. His name deserves to be forgotten. Discarded. Deleted. Labels like “madman”, “monster”, or “maniac” won’t do, either. There’s a perverse glorification in terms like that. If the media’s going to call him anything, it should call him pathetic; a nothing.”
– Charlie Booker on the Oslo bomber

Since its origin, Wikipedia has dedicated itself to freedom of information, the spread of culture, and the cultivation of world knowledge. You may remember the most recent documentary our CAP stream watched in ASTU, RiP! A Remix Manifesto. Although the documentary focused mainly on the realm of music and video sharing and remixing, what role does this creative media have as information? Is the Wikipedian permitted to use copyrighted and non-free content under the fair use law? What are Wikipedia’s policies on this subject?

Wikipedia’s Policy Page on non-free content states:
“Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project… Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court. The Wikimedia Foundation reserves the right to remove non-free copyrighted content at any time. Note that citation sources and external links raise other copyright concerns that are addressed in other policies.”

Now for a bit more context about the origin of the Wiki. The concept for Wiki sites was the brainchild of Ward Cunningham, an American computer programmer that decided he would create a site called WikiWikiWeb back in 1994. This is what it looks like today. It was the first instance of a “website whose users can add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor.” The idea being that users could edit the content posted to the site in the spirit of free information and the spread of knowledge.

Lawrence Lessig,  political activist known for his support of the concepts of Free Culture, free software, and open spectrum keeps his own wiki-style site, LessigWiki, in which “he has encouraged the public to use to document cases of (political) corruption.” Lessig spoke about the ethics of Free Culture at the Wikimania conference in 2006. You can find a crappy recording of his speech here.

You remember, of course, Wikipedia’s SOPA/PIPA protest on January 18th, 2012. The acts seek to “expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.”

 

The Wikimedia foundation made a statement the night of the blackout, saying: “It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.”