 It's been called a swarm, a gauntlet, and a crime victim's worst nightmare. Intense media interest and competition for stories relating to crime is more profound now than ever before. It's because of increasing numbers of local and national radio and television news channels, a proliferation of traditional and specialized print publications, and a journalistic revolution on the internet. Together, these news media often play an important positive role in advancing public safety and crime control, but the intense competition that's part of the effort, along with the insensitivity of some journalists, can result in disaster for victims of crime. This program is offered in connection with the National Victim Assistance Academy and is sponsored by the Office for Victims of Crime. It examines how the news media cover crime and victimization, what can be done to help victims deal with this coverage, and how victim service providers can work together to promote timely, sensitive coverage. It's no secret that crime stories attract viewers, listeners, and readers. It means victims of crime are often thrust into the limelight, whether they're willing or not. Large-scale tragedies like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and the 1999 Columbine High School Massacre in Littleton, Colorado draw thousands of journalists and force hundreds of victims into the public eye. While tragedies with fewer victims, but sensational circumstances can also inspire a media frenzy, a frenzy capable of magnifying a victim's pain and suffering. It happened to Ellen Levin in 1986, when her daughter was murdered. Robert Chambers killed Jennifer Levin in a case that the media called the preppy murder. The case received national attention from mainstream as well as tabloid media, and that meant intense pressure for Jennifer Levin's family. Case that was really custom-built for headlines, because it included two young, beautiful people. The murder took place in Central Park. It was rumored that they both came from wealthy families, which was not true, but this caught the headlines. Robert Chambers told a story about rough sex, which was just custom-made for headlines. I was thrown into, of course, the worst moment of my life when I heard that my daughter's death, but it was made twice and three times as bad by the media circus that surrounded it. There were hordes, hordes of people outside the loft that I was supposed to be up in to be with my family. We had curiosity seekers, but more than that, there were hundreds of reporters. The news media were there en masse with cameras and microphones. I was so frightened that I didn't want to leave the car. My throat closed. I couldn't talk. I couldn't react to anything except fear that people were running towards me. I was at my weakest moment of my life, which I think most crime victims, especially new crime victims who just get the news, couldn't be in a more vulnerable time. I heard them screaming, there's the mother, there's the mother, and they were running and the police were running behind them to try to get to me to protect me. It was one of the most horrifying moments of my life and as the day progressed and the police were out looking for her murderer, Robert Chambers confessed. In his confession, he made up a story that included rough sex, how Jennifer tried to rape him. I mean, he was six foot two, about 210 pounds. Nobody believed his story. The police didn't believe him. The DA didn't believe him. Nobody believed him, but the media loved him. The arrest of Chambers and the subsequent trial created an uncontrolled media circus that totally distorted the facts of the case, making Levin's daughter seem like the perpetrator instead of the victim, putting the family on the defensive and invading the privacy of anyone who might have a connection or information relating to the story. In Littleton, Colorado, the scope of the tragedy was much wider and the media were on scene as events unfolded. Victims escaping the high school were thrust into national prominence, as were families waiting to hear the fate of their loved ones. Television viewers had the choice of watching the tragedy play out from the safety and comfort of their living rooms, but victims had to respond to the pressure of the media while still in shock. It's the type of scene that's becoming all too common, pressing victim service providers like Caroline Ellis into action. victims must deal initially with the shock of what's happening to them, with the reality, with the episode, with the event, with the instance itself. And that in itself is overwhelming. It's beyond the imagination, horror, shock, pain, confusion. People are stunned. They have no idea, perhaps in some instances, where other loved ones are. There are just so many issues to be considered. And to add the dimension of media, whether it's print or broadcast, someone with the responsibility to provide information, facts, issues to the public, you just cannot imagine the kinds of stories that victims retell about that experience. They talk about feeling wounded, rewounded, re-victimized. They talk about having their insides gutted for the sake of passing information on and the public's right to have information about their private lives. At that point, initially, when the event happens, there's little time to think of those things that people would like to have remain private other than the fact that nothing seems to be private at that moment. Part of the problem, no doubt, exists because the media justify their actions as serving the public's right to know. And in doing so, some journalists go to extremes. Reporters can be very pushy, very arrogant in their approach to the people they interview at times. Not all reporters, obviously, are this way. Some reporters are very respectful, but others aren't. And I think probably the one thing that a reporter can do right up front is to accept no for an answer and say, okay, if you want to talk, I understand, and move on. Colorado State University journalism professor Greg Luft says competitive instincts and professional pressures often push journalists into undesirable behavior. Organizations compete for ratings or circulation, and reporters are pressured to be first and most complete. Individual competition also comes into play, with journalists taking pride in being first, enjoying the attention that brings, and knowing that aggressive reporting can lead to better jobs. Luft believes that journalists are more likely to force the issue when stories take on sensational overtones, getting caught up in the circus-like atmosphere, and feeling less responsible to conventional ethical practices. Also, even if a reporter does an admirable job gathering information, editors and headline writers who don't have a feel for the situation may sensationalize material for hype value before it's broadcast or printed. Next, by training, journalists are visually oriented, so there's almost always pressure to get pictures of the crime scene or victims. Reporters also strive to interview victims of crime because of the belief that real life reactions give their stories more personality, character, and impact. Many journalists also believe that giving victims the opportunity to talk is beneficial. But Luft believes that deadline pressures often have the most impact on how journalists approach a story, with broadcast reporters usually the most aggressive because of multiple, non-negotiable deadlines each day, including those imposed by the ability to broadcast a story live. The reporter, for instance, is doing a live shot, and the producer says, you're going to have to fill three minutes, and the reporter needs to find something to make it interesting. So once again, this is where the ad-libbing starts, and this is where some of the mistakes are made, is the deadline ad-libbing pressure. And this is also where victims are approached for interviews and where their reaction to the story become the commodity that the television station or the newspapers utilize as content. And that commodity, unfortunately, puts them and may put them at risk emotionally for further problems. It may not do them any good. In some cases, it may have a cathartic effect, and I think that's debatable depending on who you talk to and whatever the situation is. But the reporters are not thinking in terms of how it's going to affect the victim. They're thinking in terms of what they need to get, where they need to get it, and how they need to get it to the audience, because the audience is very hungry for the information, especially during a breaking story. This is the type of scenario that reporters faced in the recent Columbine High School shootings, and the result was a free-for-all where any victim in the open seemed to become fair game for any type of question. Massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, to me was probably the first example of the news media in the information age having immediate access as the crime was occurring to many of the victims. It was a highly unusual case where there really were not very many restraints in covering the crime. The question has been raised seriously, whether or not it was perhaps helpful for the children as they were fleeing, traumatized, and wounded from Columbine High School as the crime was still occurring, whether or not it was perhaps helpful for them to be immediately interviewed by journalists. I find this question absolutely preposterous that the media or anyone could feel that an untrained person with no experience in trauma response or mental health could consider their talking to victims as they were in shock, physically wounded, that they could consider this to be helpful, and yet that question has been raised and I think merits further discussion. Anne Seymour is a senior faculty member of the National Victim Assistance Academy. Like many victim advocates, she believes the media's assumption that interviews help victims is just one of the many troublesome issues that crime victims and advocates have identified about how the media cover crime and victimization. One of the biggest concerns is interviewing victims at inappropriate times, which would be at the time the crime is occurring, the arrest is made as victims are going through court, at sentencing years later perhaps at parole hearing, it's a time when victims are very traumatized and it's important that the media be sensitive to not conducting interviews when the victim might be a little bit stressed out. I think it's important that the media not ignore victims' wishes. If a victim wants to do an interview, that's great, but if a victim doesn't want to do an interview or wants to issue a written statement, they should have the right to do so and a lot of victims tell me that they've made their wishes clear to journalists and yet those wishes were ignored. The media also in some cases and not always tend to glamorize the offenders. I remember years ago they described an assailant who was a law school graduate, rape crisis center volunteer, Republican Party volunteer, who they were describing was Ted Bundy. And in their tendency to glamorize the offender, they completely omitted information about the many, many young women who were killed by this offender. Sometimes journalists and in particular headline writers use euphemisms to describe crimes. One that a lot of people would remember is the preppy murderer. This was the case in New York where Jennifer Levin was murdered by Robert Chambers in Central Park and yet few people remember the name of the victim in that case, Jennifer Levin. Women's also have concerns that sometimes the news media fail to report crimes at all. If I was a white middle class male and I was murdered on a certain part of Washington, D.C., it would be headline news and yet if I was a black female mother of four in another part of Washington, D.C., if it made it to the murder roundup on the back page of the Metro section, that would be news. And I think the media sometimes tend to reflect societal biases and I think that's a concern for all of us. Probably the biggest concern that crime victims and advocates have is related directly to privacy issues. While most journalists, I think, do a very good job of having policies that preclude them from naming rape victims and naming child victims and other sensitive victims like elderly victims, it seems as of late these policies have been bended to the point where many of them have broken. We know that one of the major reasons that women don't report rape is they are afraid of having their name disclosed in the media and so considering special sensitive victims' privacy concerns is something that we are all very committed to making an issue with the news media. There's also a double-edged sword that occurs with the media when law enforcement officers will not talk to the media to preserve the sanctity of the case. The traumatized victim doesn't talk to the media because they are going through shock among other things. There's a tendency to still have to get information or facts of the case, if you will, and so very often they rely on witnesses who may or may not have anything to do with the case and end up what a lot of victims say is reporting innuendo about the case and that's very, very hurtful to victims. Innuendo was a major factor in the Jennifer Levin murder case. In order not to prejudice the jury, Robert Chambers passed of drug problems, burglary and theft records were not revealed in court. The defense and thus the media were allowed to introduce any information including rumors and innuendo about Jennifer Levin's past. Additional concerns include the media's common practice of photographing scenes with bodies, body bags and blood, referring to drunk driving crashes as accidents, revealing the names of homicide victims before survivors are notified about the death of their loved ones and inaccurate reporting, misspelling of names and misstating of victims' ages. Many of these concerns played out in 1995 after 169 people were killed as a result of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Media coverage was intense and victims were overcome by this pressure. When the venue for the subsequent trials was moved to Denver, victim service providers were determined to help victims cope with media demands. Families in Oklahoma City had very, some of them had very difficult and bad experiences with the media that arrived in Oklahoma City right after the tragedy. They felt that their privacy had been invaded and that they were not in control. And what we know about victims of crime is that one of the issues is that their control has been taken away. So one of the things that we can do to enhance their healing process is to give them some control over their lives again. And one of those things that we could do for them was to really provide them some control about their interaction with the media. Robin Finnegan was co-director of the Colorado Oklahoma Resource Council, which worked in Denver to protect the rights of victims who attended the trials. Her work was made easier because of a unique 70-member media consortium. The consortium worked closely with the city of Denver, the federal court, and victim service providers to plan orderly coverage of the trials, setting aside a so-called media bullpen to stage interviews and setting a standard of behavior that has already been used as a model for coverage of other cases. So they organized and established their own rules and there was some accountability as to the, they were credentialed of who could go into the bullpen, who could go into the courthouse, and the most wonderful piece of that is that there was a sense of teamwork between our organization and the media consortium because they, what we tried to do is provide them with some stories and interviews and access and names as long as there was a sense of cooperation that they would agree to treat these victims with dignity and respect. And that then these victims felt like that they, for the first time, had an option about when and where interviews happened, that they didn't feel like they were going to be jumped on the minute they walked out of the courtroom, that there were private spaces and times that the media did not have access to, and there was a real agreement about that. It was like emotionally being here in person, almost reliving a lot of what you went through. While Finnegan and others coached victims on dealing with the media and helped coordinate interviews, the U.S. District Court agreed to set aside the media bullpen, which could be used for interviews when victims were willing. The media consortium agreed to give victims space on a restricted walkway between the courthouse and a nearby church, which was designated as a media-free safe haven. Kind of a three-pronged approach there. The justice system, making it very clear that there would be restrictions, that they wouldn't put up with the kind of thing that happened in Los Angeles during Georgia-Simpson trials. The media, knowing that they would get more out of the court system, their coverage would be better if they worked together and if they worked with the court. And having a very close relationship with victim advocates and setting some rules and guidelines with victim advocates so that the victim advocates could help them get what they needed from victims, but at the same time the victims would be protected when they want it to be. Luft studied the media's behavior for more than a year, producing an hour-long documentary that included victim viewpoints and concerns. He believes that victim service providers can help the media act more responsibly by establishing clear guidelines. I think boundaries are very important, physical boundaries as well as protocol boundaries, simply because once journalists know what those boundaries are, it helps them avoid the pack mentality. Pack mentality takes over when one journalist is afraid that someone else is going to get something that they don't and then the pack just gains steam and goes in for the kill. But boundaries will help all journalists help each other not to break those rules and guidelines. boundaries for journalists are one part of the equation, while providing direction for victims is also an important component of making the relationship work. Years ago we developed specific guidelines for victims who choose to deal with the news media. That lets them know that they have rights and they have choices and I think the most important choice is whether or not they wish to deal with the news media at all. The National Center for Victims of Crime has also developed specific guidelines for victims who go on talk shows. I think this is one area of the news media where victims have been exploited, emotionally abused, neglected, treated poorly, ambushed and it was time that we really look at telling victims that they do not have to do these shows and if they decide to do these shows that there are certain guidelines that they should expect the producers to follow. Specific media guidelines recommended for victims include the right to refuse an interview at any time. To choose a spokesman or advocate. To set time and location for interviews. To request or deny interviews with specific reporters. To release a written statement instead of an interview. To keep children from being interviewed. To refuse questions that cause discomfort. To ask about the direction a story will take. To avoid mass interviews. To demand corrections of inaccuracies. To ask that offensive visuals not be used in a story. To conduct interviews without being photographed. To provide the complete story of one's victimization. To refuse to answer questions during a trial. To file a formal complaint against a journalist. To grieve in privacy. And to suggest training about media and victims for media in the community. While these guidelines apply to victims it is the victim advocate who can help ensure the victim knows how to apply these practices in a given situation. I see the role is that of navigating. Of being a navigator. To provide information to make sure that at that moment that the victim is well aware of the dynamics involved. That here is media and this is what happens. That your story is going to be projected and the facts are going to be laid out. And we hope that the facts are going to be laid out without distortion and correctly. But at the same time you have the ability to say yes or no. It's strictly your choice. You don't have to respond simply because they are here. You can make some demands in terms of what you would like to have conveyed in the way that you'd like to have it conveyed. You certainly can control the interview in every way. Victim service providers play a critical role in shepherding the victim not only through the case but through the different points in the case where the media will for good reasons have an interest in that case. As a victim advocate I always try to let victims know that they do have rights in dealing with the media. That they have choices as to whether or not they wish to deal with the media. I also let them know what I know about certain journalists. As a long time victim advocate there are people who I know are extremely sensitive to crime victims and their needs. And there are other journalists is probably a stretch in terms of the word but there are other people who call themselves journalists whose sensitivity to victims is extremely lacking. It's also my job to make sure that the victim knows that they can write a written statement if they want to have their opinions expressed that can be given to the media. I would also coordinate any statements from the victim with the prosecutor in a case to ensure that there is no conflict in terms of protecting the sanctity of the case. I'm sorry to say in some cases I've actually provided a physical buffer between crime victims and the news media particularly in high profile cases where the victim's wishes to privacy or to not speak to the media are not regarded. In cases of homicide it's extremely important that I help the victim identify how he or she wants their child their parent to be remembered. This may mean getting photographs of the person having them talk to me about the memories of that person so that the memory of what has been lost to a violent murder is honored as well. The victim advocate must take the lead once an event has happened but that person can also work to improve the media's knowledge before a crime occurs. This can be done by encouraging and volunteering training in a number of different venues and utilizing specific techniques. Hopefully we can pass on the fact that we need to expand the definition of team and I think that's a new concept for people particularly in government and in nonprofits and in the clergy. We never imagined ourselves as team players before and as team members and now what we know is that we can't do it without each other. It's critical that crime victims and advocates seek the opportunity and indeed the journalist associations are seeking the opportunity from crime victims to speak to journalists to get dialogue going in a way that it's in a way training but it's more in a way dialogue that occurs that sort of enlightens each other to their mutual interests and their mutual concerns. I would like to see in every school of journalism a sensitivity program to teach the students who will be covering crime victims about what a crime victim suffers. I think for the media to have a good handle on how to behave and how to react in situations where victims of crime are being interviewed or the subjects of the story that ownership and management and organizations have to take it on themselves to train their staffs. They have to find a way to work case study situations into the training so that when a reporter, when a photographer, when someone on staff gets to the story, starts collecting information, they know how to do it in a sensitive way. The media aren't likely to go away or stop covering crime. Media coverage of crime and victimization, however, can serve a valuable and necessary function for all concerned parties. Reasonable and necessary goals of those involved should be to recognize and respect the roles and concerns of victims, advocates and journalists to communicate and share information as openly as possible before crime occurs. And to be willing to work together as a team rather than adversaries when events make that necessary.