The media: sensation or news?

By Henry Wong

On Mon., Jan. 18, the Yale Daily News printed a front-page article about the Suzanne Jovin murder. The title of the report, "Jovin was upset with Van de Velde," gave readers the impression that the article revealed vital developments in the case. Not until deep into the article did the reader discovered that Jovin was "upset" due to Van de Velde's tardiness in reading a draft of her senior essay.

That didn't stop WTNH Channel 8 from picking up the YDN story as a newsworthy development in the case. A summary on the station's web page said that "Jovin had been upset with her advisor, James Van de Velde, in the week before her murder," and that "Jovin's feelings about Van de Velde had deteriorated."

Those words are perfect for a local news broadcast: they conveniently extract all the information that might generate suspicion while leaving out bland details like why Jovin was "upset." Worse, they completely fail to mention that most of her friends did not suspect an unethical relationship and that many students still revere Van de Velde's teaching ability.

Adding to the tone of the media circus, which depicts Van de Velde as a criminal rather than a suspect, are reports of his dismissal from journalism programs and police complaints filed by former co-workers. Finally, the cancellation of Van de Velde's classes has generated still more suspicion.

Are any of these "shocking" and "devastating" details of Van de Velde's life important to the case? Probably not. Are they any of our business? Not unless they had something to do with the death of Suzanne Jovin. Instead of using a fine brush to paint a picture of the investigation, the media are smearing Van de Velde, leaving no part of his life hidden from a public starving for incredible headlines.

This is the media today. Barbara Walters finds Ginger Spice more fascinating than scientists working on cloning. Jerry Springer airs his viewpoints on a local news broadcast. Shock value dominates; hidden cameras and live coverage are preferred to accurate reporting and thorough investigation. Top-notch investigators now must compete for page space and air time with attractive news anchors who don't do any real beat reporting, heavily-funded zealots with agendas, and now, even Larry Flynt.

Last August, reporters covered President Bill Clinton's, LAW '73, grand jury testimony for days, although from their vantage point outside the courthouse they could only report what people were wearing. Stains became more important than policy. Every time Clinton did something that drew attention, even for a second, away from the never-ending witchhunt, he was accused of "wagging the dog." This is today's media, the same media that many Yale student journalists aspire someday to join. We long to be part of a business that is withering from a corrupted vision.

Before the Jan. 18 article, it appeared the student media would not irresponsibly join the Van de Velde circus. Jovin's parents even sent a letter to the editor thanking the YDN for its "sensitive coverage" only a few days earlier.

Part of the problem is the ambition within us Yalies. We think that we can hold our own and compete with other media organizations, even scoop them once in a while. This self-applied pressure may be a driving force in the lack of discretion.

Another possibility is the scary prospect that journalism as we practice it is only a reflection of journalism as we know it. If this is true, then the old ideals of news reporting may be close to extinction. If these ideals can't survive at the undergraduate level, while we're still reporting for the love of the job instead of profit and ratings, then what are the chances that the pillars of responsible journalism will continue to stand?

Henry Wong is a sophomore in Davenport.

Back to Opinion...