No one can truly express in words the amount of shock felt upon hearing about the massacre at Virginia Tech. I don't know anybody at Virginia Tech, but when such horrible things happen, it affects everyone. Plus, the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was a Korean like myself. Here and there I have experienced stinging remarks about South Koreans and how terrible we are. But that's a different story.
As soon as news spread about the killings, the media immediately began mass coverage of the event. It was hard to avoid hearing about Virginia Tech; it was every news channel and every Internet site's main story.
On the New York Times site, there is a multimedia package that covers everything from an interactive graphic of Virginia Tech to a video clip of the candlelight vigil held last Tuesday night. There was also a page devoted to the victims of the shooting. Each person's picture smiles back at the viewer, and a rollover contains links to each victim's personal profile and comments left by readers.
It was quite touching to see such a memorial for the victims. Somehow, seeing each individual's picture makes the event seem more real. Virginia seems so far away, with us being in Texas. It really is hard to relate to the pain going through the people who were affected. The sadness I felt was almost tangible, and my heart goes out to their family members who are in much grief.
As for the interactive graphic, it covers in detail the buildings where the shootings took place. It starts out with a map of the campus and shows more detail as the massacre progressed. One particular graphic, showing Norris Hall and listing the death toll. Seeing the squares drawn for every person who was shot was quite impacting. Classrooms full of students and staff were killed and wounded. Honestly, 32 did not sound like such a big number, but seeing and counting those squares...there really were a lot of lives taken.
CNN.com also had special coverage of the shootings. This site had more video clips, probably because CNN is mainly TV news, as opposed to the New York Times. It is also an advantage this site had over the NY Times. Having short video clips is far more convenient than having to read through an online story. They allow the witnesses and other students to speak for themselves, convey their own emotions. One thing I didn't like about the clips, however, was the fact that they were so short. If they had been longer, I think they would be more effective. Sure, the main point of news is to report happenings, but sensationalizing almost seems unavoidable with TV news.
One clip was that which a student had taken on his cell phone. On the shaky video, gunshots are clearly heard popping in the air. It is horrifying and the sounds sent chills up my spine. To imagine that he was so close to the area where the killings took place. But for having survived such a tragedy, and being in such a close vicinity, he was strangely calm as he gave his interview.
Finally, I looked into Yahoo's coverage of the event. Because Yahoo is a search engine and not a specific news medium, most of its news stories were compiled of AP wire stories. It also had a far more information than the other two sites, most likely because it is a search engine and had pulled from numerous sources. In fact, most of the video clips provided were from CNN. Also, Yahoo wasn't as organized into a package as the other two had.
Yahoo's coverage wasn't as appealing as the Times or CNN. Too much information had been tossed together onto one page, but this was also the one advantage I thought it had over the other two. As for the Times, I personally liked this coverage the best. The package included slideshows of photos, video clips, detailed stories, and especially the profiles of the victims. CNN didn't have as much information as the others, I thought, except for the video clips.
Honestly, I was trying to steer away from the coverage of this tragedy as much as I can. I really don't know why; perhaps I'm choosing to stay positive and focus on the positive things that may be happening in this world. Or perhaps I just can't handle tragedy very well. Or maybe, just maybe, it's because the shooter was a Korean, and I feel ashamed at what happened. I don't know. All I know is that I've failed miserably. With so much information available so quickly, it really is almost impossible to avoid.
I hope the nation heals quickly. I've stumbled upon two sites that are dedicated to the tragedy. The first offers a bracelet with the inscription "we are all Hokies" that can be bought. The proceeds will be used to fund the Hokie spirit memorial fund. The other is a memorial to the event and includes a video tribute.
I'll end this post with a tribute video taken from the Facebook group "SMU sends condolences to Virginia Tech."
"Forget any and all college affiliations today.
For today, we are all Hokies."
-- Russell Denney, University of Miami
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Nicholas Kristof
Two time Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof was at SMU on Tuesday. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the New York Times columnist speak. The Times Web site has an extensive collection of his work online, so I had to settle for that instead.
According to his Times bio online, he joined the paper in 1984 and started out covering economics and serving as a correspondent in Los Angeles. He also covered the 2000 presidential campaign. He and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn who is also a journalist at the Times, won a Pulitzer prize together, becoming the first married couple to do so. He won a second Pulitzer in 2006.
One clip I watched was "Mukhtar's Refuge." It was hard to tear my eyes away from the screen, even for a mere second. Seeing the surroundings of the refuge, seeing the anguish and injustice lined on the people's faces, left quite an impact. Sure, the story is powerful enough to have some impact simply through writing, but the words alone could not do the story justice. One woman on the clip, whose 11-year-old daughter was raped, tortured and killed, cannot hide her emotions from the camera. As she tells her story, her pained face expression tells of her sorrow, the pain she felt as she found her young daughter's body. She was not able to receive justice from her village or from the Pakistani government. Instead, she had to seek refuge elsewhere.
Another young woman, whose husband forced her into prostitution, also tells her story. She was married to a "gentle" guy whom she later found out owned a brothel. He told her to work there, and upon her refusal, began to torture her family. She assented, and was locked into a room for two years. She managed to escape, but her husband's gang retaliated by kidnapping her 5th grade brother and using him instead. He managed to escape also, and the family went to the police to report the injustice. The police, however, worked alongside with the gang and instead mocked the family.
The young woman sheds tears as she tells her heartbreaking story. The love among the family members is also evident when the brother says he would rather die than dishonor his sister. It was a heart warming, "aww" moment for me, but also sad. Her one-legged father also cries as he tells of his experience of "merciless beatings" from the police, who arrested him. Her mother firmly says that God should not grant daughters to poor people, and that if the family had money, they wouldn't have these problems.
I felt several different emotions watching this clip. Sadness, obviously, and pity, injustice, disbelief, and horror among others. I couldn't stop saying, "wow," for so many different reasons. These emotions would not be as strong had I read this story online. Although I was unable to watch all the clips on the Times Web site, a quick scan shows that his stories are all about people. People who have a certain plight, plights that other people need to know about. There are stories about the Darfur crisis, Pakistani people, AIDS patients, and so much more.
Being in such a safe, comfortable country, we as Americans don't experience genocide, epidemics, severe injustice, or extreme poverty like the people in Kristof's stories. He works make other people aware of the lives of other people, people who live in a country that isn't free, that isn't rich, and that isn't just. I think we forget about these people, being in such comfortable surroundings.
Kristof uses multimedia to his advantage in these stories. The stories use emotion as a key factor in leaving an impression upon the viewer. Watching this clip is far more powerful than if I had read the story online. Truthfully, I wouldn't have read through the whole story, probably skimmed through it. These stories need to be told, and other people need to be aware of such crises. Besides, who can tell one's own story better than that person? No matter how excellent a reporter may be, I don't think he could possibly retell someone else's story with the same emotions she felt, simply because he doesn't have the same experience. That's what Kristof does. He allows the people to tell their own stories. To let their emotions flow onto the film. This is why his method of story-telling is so effective.
I think it's important that such powerful stories be told using multimedia. Sure, some may argue it will become too sensationalized, but the method is effective. Stories should stir something in people, whether it is happiness or shock. Good or bad, if an impact is left in the reader or viewer, I believe the reporter has done a good job. Of course, I don't think multimedia alone will be good. All clips should have accompanying written stories that will go more in depth on the issue. I'm so glad that multimedia packages are becoming more popular. I believe it's the best way to tell stories, especially ones of other people. It spikes interest in otherwise indifferent people. Who knows? Because of such an impacting clip, someone may arise that could make a change. All because, like Kristof said at the end of this clip, "we are watching."
According to his Times bio online, he joined the paper in 1984 and started out covering economics and serving as a correspondent in Los Angeles. He also covered the 2000 presidential campaign. He and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn who is also a journalist at the Times, won a Pulitzer prize together, becoming the first married couple to do so. He won a second Pulitzer in 2006.
One clip I watched was "Mukhtar's Refuge." It was hard to tear my eyes away from the screen, even for a mere second. Seeing the surroundings of the refuge, seeing the anguish and injustice lined on the people's faces, left quite an impact. Sure, the story is powerful enough to have some impact simply through writing, but the words alone could not do the story justice. One woman on the clip, whose 11-year-old daughter was raped, tortured and killed, cannot hide her emotions from the camera. As she tells her story, her pained face expression tells of her sorrow, the pain she felt as she found her young daughter's body. She was not able to receive justice from her village or from the Pakistani government. Instead, she had to seek refuge elsewhere.
Another young woman, whose husband forced her into prostitution, also tells her story. She was married to a "gentle" guy whom she later found out owned a brothel. He told her to work there, and upon her refusal, began to torture her family. She assented, and was locked into a room for two years. She managed to escape, but her husband's gang retaliated by kidnapping her 5th grade brother and using him instead. He managed to escape also, and the family went to the police to report the injustice. The police, however, worked alongside with the gang and instead mocked the family.
The young woman sheds tears as she tells her heartbreaking story. The love among the family members is also evident when the brother says he would rather die than dishonor his sister. It was a heart warming, "aww" moment for me, but also sad. Her one-legged father also cries as he tells of his experience of "merciless beatings" from the police, who arrested him. Her mother firmly says that God should not grant daughters to poor people, and that if the family had money, they wouldn't have these problems.
I felt several different emotions watching this clip. Sadness, obviously, and pity, injustice, disbelief, and horror among others. I couldn't stop saying, "wow," for so many different reasons. These emotions would not be as strong had I read this story online. Although I was unable to watch all the clips on the Times Web site, a quick scan shows that his stories are all about people. People who have a certain plight, plights that other people need to know about. There are stories about the Darfur crisis, Pakistani people, AIDS patients, and so much more.
Being in such a safe, comfortable country, we as Americans don't experience genocide, epidemics, severe injustice, or extreme poverty like the people in Kristof's stories. He works make other people aware of the lives of other people, people who live in a country that isn't free, that isn't rich, and that isn't just. I think we forget about these people, being in such comfortable surroundings.
Kristof uses multimedia to his advantage in these stories. The stories use emotion as a key factor in leaving an impression upon the viewer. Watching this clip is far more powerful than if I had read the story online. Truthfully, I wouldn't have read through the whole story, probably skimmed through it. These stories need to be told, and other people need to be aware of such crises. Besides, who can tell one's own story better than that person? No matter how excellent a reporter may be, I don't think he could possibly retell someone else's story with the same emotions she felt, simply because he doesn't have the same experience. That's what Kristof does. He allows the people to tell their own stories. To let their emotions flow onto the film. This is why his method of story-telling is so effective.
I think it's important that such powerful stories be told using multimedia. Sure, some may argue it will become too sensationalized, but the method is effective. Stories should stir something in people, whether it is happiness or shock. Good or bad, if an impact is left in the reader or viewer, I believe the reporter has done a good job. Of course, I don't think multimedia alone will be good. All clips should have accompanying written stories that will go more in depth on the issue. I'm so glad that multimedia packages are becoming more popular. I believe it's the best way to tell stories, especially ones of other people. It spikes interest in otherwise indifferent people. Who knows? Because of such an impacting clip, someone may arise that could make a change. All because, like Kristof said at the end of this clip, "we are watching."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)