ABC-7 Xtra: Discussing the Virginia journalists shooting

applebee’s. >>> live where news comes first, this is “abc-7 xtra. >>> good evening. welcome to “abc-7 xtra. i’m maria garcia. this past week was a sad one for our country and for journalists all over the world and in the united states when we learned reporter alison parker and videographer adam ward were gunned down by a former call league. the shooting has raised so many issues to the surface: the ethics of some media’s use of the killer’s graphic first person video, workplace violence, the difficulties of covering your own story as the station did, the role of social media in the crime, and gun control. tonight, we’re going to try to talk about all of those. joing us, former longtime el paso journalists felipa solis and gary warner. you can e-mail us your comments and questions now to abc7xtra@kvia.com. tweet me at @mariagabc7 or you can mail us at abc7xtra@kvia.com before our discussion, let’s take a look at the memorial service for alison parker and adam ward today. and now, parker’s mother says her family will do whatever it takes to combat gun violence in the united states. >> adam and alison saw as their mission to awaken us to what was good and fun in life. >> colleagues remembered alison parker and adam ward as two hard-working journalists taken much too soon. >> i want to play softball with adam again, and i want to see alison dance. and i will, in the wonderful memories they gave me, they gave us. >> the two were gunned down while conducting a live tv interview wednesday. shooter vester flanagan then faxed a suicide note to abc news, outling his racial motives in the killings. flanagan took his own life as police closed in. to parker’s parents, the tragedy has opened a window for change. >> you always think there’s a tipping point. i think this time it’s going to be different. >> we cannot be intimidated. we cannot be pushed aside. >> in an exclusive interview with cnn, barbara parker says her family will advocate for gun control reforms and to keep firearms out of the hands of those with mental illnesses. >> if you are a parent, if you’re a mother, if you have children, can you look your child in the eye and say, we are willing to allow you to be collateral damage in order to keep what some people perceive as their constitutional right? >> the parkers say they know their work will take a long time, but… >> i’m telling you, they messed with the wrong family. >> let’s go to our panel now. former long-time el paso journalists felipa solis and gary warner going — both join us. what an honor it is to be on the same set with you. >> it’s an honor for me to be able to sit next to gary warner. this is quite wonderful. thank you for including me. >> it’s great to be here. >> thank you so much for joining us. so let’s start with safety. i think one of the primary issues this tragedy has surfaced is how vulnerable sometimes news crews are out in the field. sometimes when you’re doing an interview out there or you’re preparing for your live shot, we were speaking about it here in the newsroom, you have tunnel vision, you’re so concentrated on your deadline, your story, on the facts, that you don’t realize that there are people around you. >> your surroundings are not what are paramount there. what’s important there to you is like you say getting the story out, being the first to report it and you almost take for granted what you’re doing, you’re watching your cameraman give you — you’ve got three seconds, boom, and you go, and you work with that. and like you say, you’re focused on your story. and you don’t think about your vulnerability until something like this happens. what also i think was a time where journalists probably felt that vulnerability was even 9/11 because it was so real and so in our face and we were reporting this and i can only imagine how difficult it is for people who worked with these two and other journalists around the country in the newsroom, in the live shot, that very day. it had to have been almost impossible to report. >> it was, i mean the fiancee of thevideographer was in the control room. television news continues to evolve. it almost elves in a way that it’s — evolves in a way that’s hard for the industry itself to keep up. you always have consultants coming in, but content is king. there’s always something new in television news, and i think one of the challenges right now with television is social media and before you maybe used to have people in the background heckling a little bit or jumping up and down, but now when you know that if you get in a reporter’s live shot and you say some lewd comment or, you know, you get in front of the camera and you yell, you know that somebody will record it and before you know it, that clip has gone viral, and it’s all over twitter, it’s all over facebook, it’s all over the internet, so we’re seeing more and more aggression towards reporters when it comes to hecklers getting in their live shots, really recently. >> i think there are many degrees of elevation between heckling in a live shot and shooting someone dead. >> right. >> there’s a lot of distance between those two events. if i could find any reassurance, i don’t think that this incident represents some kind of previously unforeseen upswelling of violent resentment against the news media. this mr. flanagan who was the shooter had expressed admiration for the shooters in columbine and virginia tech. that’s not related to the news media. that’s something else entirely. he had a personal grievance at the station where he was fired. that also was a personal issue, not generally connecting to the news media. so i don’t think what we have here is the beginning of some kind of violent upswelling against the news media. there still is that vulnerability, you’re right about that, that will remain. >> there is some concern about copy cats. >> well, absolutely, but i think what it is and what gary is saying is that the transparency of it all, it’s the fact that this was a random situation, if you will but we were all privy to it. every one of us was able to see it because of the nature of technology. it has swept i guess this business to such a degree that when you talk about heckling, it’s so prevalent, this particular case was incredibly isolated. >> you’re right about the copy cat business, t. that is a concern, regardless of how mr. flanagan interpreted his actions in shooting those two reporters, the real factor is how do other people interpret what he did? and now, they can say okay i’ve got somebody new to blame, i can blame the news media for all my problems just like mr. flanagan did and i can get coverage when i do it. there’s that danger, too. >> and speaking of getting coverage, he sent that manifesto to abc news, abc news inevitably reported on it. and so at what point in the 24-hour news cycle do news outlets have to say okay this is news, and it’s relevant and it brings value to our viewers because we’re showing who this person was who killed these individuals allegedly in cold blood, at what point do you say he’s winning because this is exactly what he wanted, he wanted the notoriety, he wanted to be famous and at some point you have to say as the media, where do you draw the line? when are you responsible for making these killers famous, which is exactly what they wanted? >> well, you have to be a journalist first. that’s the point. it’s reporting the news and reporting it accurately. i think what happens in these situations is that because of all of the technology that’s available, that it could very well be that a newsroom is needing to keep up with it, rather than here’s reporting the story, we’re keeping up with it because they can see it on facebook and twitter and instagram so we have to keep broadcasting it. and i think that might be an issue, of keeping up with the times, keeping up with what’s happening technologically rather than reporting the news. >> and there’s no doubt that the media shapes the dialogue in our society, in a lot of ways, not solely, they don’t have the sole responsibility but i think the news media is responsible to some degree to how we talk about stories. it frames the story, it frames how we discuss these issues and so when you have cnn constantly putting up his pictures or talking about — and we see this with every mass shooting. what they were into, they were fans of hitler, these disturbing facts, there’s no doubt perhaps there’s a hunger, some people want to know but at what point do you say, okay? >> it is a conundrum because if you’re not reporting it, you’re not doing your job. it is our job to report the news and let the public decide on their own if we present the facts as dispassionately as we can. if we suppress the news because it’s a horrendous act, then the person who has committed that act has won, too. they’ve suppressed the news so they win both ways but we have to be careful in how we present it and as you say how long we present it, too. when we run out of new facts to present, the story has to stop. >> that’s true, i agree. i miss your voice! your sensible voice in the news! but going back to safety for journalists, i’ve seen a lot of articles talk about how this has shown how vulnerable, especially one-man bands are in television. this wasn’t the case, they had a videographer and a reporter, tragically both of them killed but this brought up the issue of when you have one reporter out there, sometimes going to report on a shooting or going to report on a riot or even not something obviously dangerous, when it’s just one person, it sort of removes at least one element, one layer of protection. >> yes, it was back in the day, there were more one-man bands back in the day than there were in the ’90s and early 2000s. you kind of take for granted your surroundings. i rember literally getting on top of the live truck more than once to do a live shot to overlook a fire or an event that was happening and you just do what you have to do to portray what you are trying to bring forth and to tell the story. so i think as journalists, perhaps this is a good lesson not that this is what has to happen to a journalist but it’s a good lesson in caution because i think we tend to throw caution to the wind to report the story, which is our job, but i think maybe now, not necessarily looking over your shoulder but being aware of your surroundings. >> stay more vigilant. >> so this never happens again. it’s something, it brings to light the nature of the safety. we are recognized on the street or people will send us letters or things like this and there are times in the newsroom where you would just dismiss it as oh, you have a stalker, ha-ha, but maybe now reporters and journalists need to be aware of their surroundings. >> in saf just last — san francisco just last month, a reporter and her crew were robbed at gunpoint on live television but you were going to say something? >> it was easier to get away with the one-mand ban operation when you started out. we only had the 10:00 and the 6:00 newscasts and the reporters could be out most of the day and put their stories together. when the technology improved and you could do live shots and especially when it improved to the point where one person could hook up a live shot, the operations continued, and i think the content suffered because you were so focused on the technology involved that the content suffered in what you were reporting. i would advocate against one-man band operations continuing for the safety factor and for the content and quality factors, as well. >> that’s right. >> i know that if i had to be carrying a camera and focusing on shooting my story, i probably wouldn’t be able to call my sources and investigate a story fully as much as i do during the day. but going back to the ethics of using the video, television stations were really dealing with how to handle the video. cnn said it would show the footage of them being shot only once an hour at the top of the hour. then cnn said, after all, we’re not going to use it at all. and others questioned whether the video should be shown at all online or on tv. is it exploitation or is it just reporting the news? >> after-play, auto play, where you don’t have a choice. i think in a situation like this, myself, having worked in this business, i hit it because i wanted to see the video, the journalist in me wanted to see exactly what happened and i saw it and it was horrifying and there it was. but there’s that fine line and gary can probably explain it much better than i can of reporting the news and making it to where it becomes overwhelming, and it’s no longer news because how many times can you watch this? >> right. >> it’s the consideration of the impact on the viewer, on the news consumer. for an over the air station like channel 7, we try to precede stories like that with warnings and advisories, what you’re about to see or hear may be graphic and not suitable for all viewers. at the same time, we draw that line. we’re not going to show blood shed. we don’t show anything beyond that. online, it’s a totally different story. and i think at that point, people have to realize that it’s not only the person who is putting that news on the air or on the internet who has a responsibility, it’s the news consumer, too. i think people by now know when they tune in to youtube or all these other social media availabilities, they might see something they don’t like. it’s going to be there and that’s their responsibility to be prepared for that. >> we’re going to talk about that when we come back, we’re going to take a commercial break, some people saying i didn’t want to see the video, i was going through facebook and twitter and it automatically played because as we spoke about that feature, auto play, we’re going to talk about that. we’re going to talk about sharing the video as a consumer. you’re watching “abc-7 xtra,” you want to share your comments or questions with us, call us at 496-1775, e-mail us at abc7xtra@kvia.com, or tweet me we’l >>> welcome back to “abc- xtra.” we’re talking about the tragic shooting in virginia this last week that left two journalists dead. joing us, felipa solis and gary warner. we were talking about social media, the shooter used social media to post the shooting, showing where he killed these two journalists. it got retweeted 800 times, posted on facebook, it got shared 380 times before it was eventually taken down. and major media outlets published stories that linked to or embedded the original video. and like you were saying gary, it’s one thing on air. online it’s a totally different platform with different rules. >> absolutely. and people have to be aware of that when they started cruising the internet. they may find some things that they don’t like to see and in some instances it’s almost impossible to retrieve after it’s out there. >> and we were talking about how you know, social media platforms specifically facebook and twitter, they really moved to embrace video. it attracts more advertisers, it makes more money. and it’s a lucrative way to engage the user to stay on the website longer. and we know that since many people don’t voluntarily click to play these videos, they auto play so you’re scrolling through your facebook or twitter feed and suddenly without you clicking, without you choosing to watch this video, you’re suddenly looking at, you know — of somebody beating a child or somebody hurting an animal or in this case a shooting before it got taken down. so there seems to be this outrage from some people who say we should have more choice when we’re on these social media platforms. >> there is but i think there’s so much with respect to loose cannon technology, even when you talk about i think children, kids have phones and access to everything. so they’re going to see it, too. that’s — you can’t censor it but there has to be a way where it’s not this consumer magnet, especially when you’re talking about a tragedy. we just saw this young woman’s family and they’re going to go after this situation and they’re going to take their tragedy and try to make change, because they’re angry and they’re hurt and they’re devastated and taking advantage of that is what’s difficult to watch, not only just as a consumer but also as a journalist because it’s easy to just get your hands on something and retweet and repost it. back in like 2003, 2004, there were no avenues like this available. >> the coverage on an issue like this, the coverage of a shooting of this magnitude would be completely different 10 years ago. >> imagine 9/11 coverage today. it would be really amazing to see how that would have changed and yet so many people talked about it being too much, showing the video over and over again, but because this was such an incredible world tragedy, as journalists, you had to do it. >> the problem is and the problem will continue to be the technology moves faster than we can. and not being a technician myself, i don’t know what the answer is but there are plenty of smart people out there who run the social media who maybe can figure out the answers to this but it’s going to be a never-ending battle because the technology will keep advancing faster than we can keep up with it. >> right and the technology is intertwined with making money as everything is with advertising dollars. let’s go to tim in the northeast. what’s your comment or your question? >> yes, i’ve got a question. what is safer, a war correspondent journalist or a civilian journalist, such as yourselves? thank you. >> so what is safer? war correspondent journalist or a civilian journalist? >> i’ll opt for el paso front versus the afghanistan front any time. it’s much safer here. >> absolutely. it is. >> i think there’s even no comparison. >> it’s apples and oranges, because of this situation when you look at the nature of the story that was being covered, they were covering an event with the chamber of commerce. so it was not lighthearted but it was a pleasant story to cover on a morning show. we’ve all done that sort of a live shot. it was just the nature of the beast and the beast was the shooter. >> an e-mail, how much of this issue also involves relationships in the workplace, especially when it comes to stigmas connected to race? is there still discriminatory issues going on in the newsroom that may lead to that? >> newsrooms are no different. you will always have these issues of discrimination based on whatever. i know this shooter had some complaints, not only because he was black but because he was also gay. so you have all these factors playing into it but i don’t think it’s a special situation in news media newsrooms. i think that’s something that you’ll find in almost any place of employment. >> absolutely. there’s always a situation, there’s always a disgruntled employee, there’s always someone who feels that they should be in a position rather than someone else. but this will take place anywhere. you can have any business, where there’s more than two employees in the room and there’s going to be a discussion at some point. but the newsroom in itself as a being is not necessarily a place that is more discriminatory than any other place of employment. >> let’s go to craig on the west side. what’s your comment or your question? >> if we’re talking about violence against journalists, why aren’t we talking about journalists internationally who are killed for the stories they’re telling? >> that’s an incredible point. >> what do you think about that? >> it’s because this was so unusual that it happened in the united states. within america where we don’t anticipate something like this happening. we know if you’re in afghanistan or iraq, bullets are flying in those places and many other places around the world. you anticipate it, you expect it, it’s not a surprise when it happens. it is very unusual when it happens here, safe at home. >> this was unprecedented, a reporter killed on live tv. >> there was nothing like it. look at someone like a daniel pearl, who lost his life while he was on the job. again, it’s the technology. it was immediate when it happened, it was 6:45 eastern time. and we knew it right away because of the nature of the technology and perhaps that’s what happens. it’s horrifying when anyone gives their life and their passion and literally gives their life, puts their life on the line and is taken away. but yes, it is unfortunate. there are a lot of journalists who are working diligently around the world around the clock and they lose their lives and we don’t hear about them. >> i knew i was going to be on tonight so i was doing a search on the internet this afternoon, violence against journalists and i even put in violence against journalists in the united states and all of the searches came back with references to afghanistan, iraq, egypt, pakistan, indonesia, other places like that. it points up how different this event is that it happened in the united states. >> right, right. all right, we have to take a break. when we come back, we’re going to talk about gun violence, the family of alison parker vowing to try to change gun laws in the united states. remember you can tweet us at @mariagabc7, abc7xtra@kvia.com and call us at >>> welcome back to “abc- xtra.” of course, we can’t not talk about gun safety and gun violence. alison parker’s family saying they are really going to advocate for stricter gun laws and it’s a pattern, we see it after every terrible shooting here in the united states. it ignites a debate once again but it’s the back and forth but it never goes anywhere and the reality seems to be there’s not a political will. >> yes, sandyhook couldn’t change thing, i don’t know what will. if this is the one that does change it and we can find a way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, god bless them, i hope they succeed with that but it’s going to be an uphill battle. >> absolutely. we’re talking about everything from constitutional rights to human rights and as we were just saying earlier, it’s a slippery slope. this family is under fire themselves because their whole lives will never be the same. in their life, they have to do what they can in the memory of their daughter and they will. and we can only hope that they see victory in their lifetime. >> it’s complicated because i can anticipate what might happen as a reaction to this shooting in virginia, some news crew, some individuals on news crews will say i want to be armed. and i live in a state like texas which has a concealed carry law, it’s legal, i want to go out on the job armed to protect myself. stations of course, station management and ownership i think will oppose that because once you have a gun at the scene, innocent people can be hit, the stations become responsible. it’s so complicated and so many possibilities. >> and it’s an never-ending back-and-forth as what makes us safer or more dangerous, more guns or no guns? and it seems that, you know, right now, in our political realm, anywhere in the near future, it just doesn’t seem like action is imminent in this issue. >> it’s so hard. you’ve got this is my constitutional right but this man, he had the right to walk up and kill two innocent people. and so again, you’re going to have so many discussions and so many battles from congress to state legislatures and again, it’s going to be difficult to come up with the answer. what makes us safer? >> well, i think a lot of it also depends on who’s lobbying whom. and the money that flows between big lobbying groups with special interests and lawmakers. but that’s the way our system works, i guess. >> it’s very difficult. if we can’t even agree on a way that firearms should be withheld from people with mental health issues, i don’t know where you can go from there, if you can’t agree on that, it’s hard to go to the next step and the next step after that. >> right. right. well, we’re out of time. thank you so much boyfriend. what an enlightening discussion. thank you. nice to see you. >> thank you so much. >> great to be back. >> good to sit next to you, gary, finally. >> it’s great to see you sit next to each other. estela is going to be a little bit jealous. >> all right, thank you so much for joing