Who Decides How to Write a Killer's Bio?
The UVA shooting is tragic, and some of the coverage was just plain wrong.
Imagine reading a sympathetic article about the person who murdered your loved one. Is it possible to comprehend that, while your loved one had perhaps overcome adversities and was striving to live a good life, reporters instead chose to describe how your loved one’s shooter endured a difficult childhood and was misunderstood because of his intelligence but had started to “flourish” a few years ago?
Imagine that only the first and last paragraphs of an 18-paragraph article mentioned the horrible crime he was alleged to have committed.
That was the article that four journalists from the Washington Post pieced together and released the morning after three University of Virginia football players were shot dead and two others were seriously injured, allegedly by UVA student Christopher Darnell Jones Jr. The incident happened on a charter bus filled with UVA students returning from an outing.
Don’t try to find the article. It’s been deleted from the Post’s online paper and its social media accounts, no doubt because of the immediate backlash that ensued. The article drew stern comments from readers (although one reader actually posted that it was still early and the paper would certainly write bios about the victims eventually).
The article that replaced the puff piece indicates just how far off the Post was in its original reporting. The new headline reads, “Accused UVA Gunman Was Scrutinized by Threat Assessment Team for Weapon.” And the article begins with this nugget:“The 22-year-old University of Virginia student accused of killing three football players on campus was being investigated by the school for claiming he owned a gun and had been convicted of a concealed weapons violation in a separate incident last year, university officials said Monday night.”
Right-leaning news sources of course came down hard on the Post. “It is entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. You could say it also isn’t journalism but, given the sorry state of the profession at legacy media outlets, that wouldn’t be entirely accurate,” the Washington Examiner lamented.
To be honest, every news source - right, left or down the middle - should have lambasted the Post for an insensitive article that made Jones sound like an Eagle Scout who had just risked his neck to save a litter of puppies from drowning. What could be the reason to produce a stellar bio of someone who was on the run after allegedly shooting a bunch of fellow college students?
Even in the new piece, the Post took a sympathetic tone towards Jones. “He played linebacker and running back at Petersburg High, earning honorable mention all-conference honors as a senior, according to a football biography on the University of Virginia website. He was a member of the National Honor Society and the National Technical Honor Society and served as president of both the Key Club and Jobs for Virginia Graduates program.”
As a critical reader, you understand the importance of a backstory. What was this person like before Sunday evening? Were there signs something was amiss? Did this person fall through the cracks? And so it’s important to talk about Jones’ personal story of growing up poor, his father leaving home when he was young and his mother struggling to make ends meet. It’s also significant to note that Jones seems to have been smart, athletic and ambitious. But that is one part of the story.
What happened? Are we to believe that Jones was fine, but then suddenly felt compelled at 10:30 pm to start shooting students on a bus? Aren’t the facts that Jones claimed he had a gun as a college student and that he had been convicted of a concealed weapons violation also a major part of the story? Isn’t it possible there were gray areas between the all-star kid and the murdering college student to indicate something like this might happen?
The original piece by The Washington Post was also poorly timed. Authorities had just released the names of the victims, and Jones still had not been caught. That was no time to be talking about Jones’ background without context. If nothing else, balance the article with information about the victims. Did they overcome hard times, too? Were they also smart, athletic and ambitious?
For what it’s worth, the Post did publish an article about the deceased football players, although it was well after the piece on Jones. That article is probably behind a paywall, but you can read tributes to the victims here.
Thankfully, the Post still allows commenting on its articles, and the paper certainly saw how many people were offended by that piece. In such instances, it’s not only okay to be a “Karen.” It’s vital to be one. Speak up and voice your displeasure. Insist on news coverage that really is fair. We need to hold all news sources accountable to the highest standards.