Two tragedies: A study in rules and exceptions

Coming in midafternoon, the killings at Fort Hood presented a particular challenge for editors in our afternoon news meeting, where decisions are made about what will run on the front page of the print edition.

We have a long-standing policy going back to before the Columbine High School shootings of not dramatizing such tragedies. Unless there are special circumstances - as with the killings at Northern Illinois University, which happened virtually in our coverage area and involved scores of local students - we question whether to put these stories on the front page and, in fact, often relegate them to inside pages. If a suspect is identified, we use his or her name once only, with subsequent references identifying "the shooter" or "the killer."

We are sensitive to the demonstrated likelihood that such events breed copycats, and we studiously aim to avoid presenting a mass murderer, no matter how mentally disturbed, in a sympathetic or noteworthy light. So, on that critical first day last week, what "special circumstances" differentiated the Fort Hood shootings? The shooter was not known, much less his possible motive. Was it the number of people dead and wounded? The setting on an Army base?

Even in the earliest moments, that latter question seemed to settle the issue. The implications of a mass shooting on a military base, regardless of its motives, cannot go unrecognized. So, the story was immediately slated for the front page. It did not get dramatic "centerpiece" treatment with large, emotional photos but did run across the top of the front page. And as the evening progressed, editors made judgments consistent with our usual concerns. The shooting suspect was named just once. His picture did not appear in the paper.

Only a day later, however, we found ourselves discussing a similar dilemma. In Florida, a man walked into an office building and began firing. At least one person was known dead and several wounded. For several hours, the shooter remained at large. As coverage of the Fort Hood shootings proceeded, it was natural to wonder how this second tragedy should fit into the picture. Should it run on the front page? If so, should it get equal treatment, running side by side with the Fort Hood aftermath?

It was clear from the start of the discussion that the Florida shootings had people on edge. The case was heartbreaking and mysterious and, coming so closely on the heels of Fort Hood, especially rattled everyone's nerves.

But it was also clear that it was not Fort Hood. It did not happen on a military base and it had all the markings of a personal, rather than a national, drama. Indeed, without Fort Hood, there would have been no discussion about front-page play.

And so, that story moved quietly inside and, appropriately, quickly faded, while Fort Hood with all its mysteries of motive and hints of terrorism grew, also appropriately, in national and local attention.

Indeed, much remains to be determined about the Fort Hood killings, and the effects of that tragedy on the national psyche will continue to merit monitoring and serious reporting. Throughout, we will continue to present the story as consistently as possible with our concerns about copycats, sensitivity and, to some people, the appeal of notoriety. But, especially in concert with the Florida shootings, it does provide a telling object lesson about when to abide by rules and when to make exceptions.

• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is an assistant managing editor.