Peoria Pundit

WHOI has an article briefly discussing the issue of when news organizations should print or broadcast reports of threats made to schools. The worry is that coverage might tend to reward false threat makers with attention, and that coverage of fake threats might desensitize the public, lading to an under-reaction when there is a threat that is real.

After a series of incidents it the station’s viewer area, KSDK instituted a policy “to report on school threats where some sort of action is taken by administrators, such as closing schools, searching schools with bomb-sniffing dogs, or posting rewards for information leading to the capture of threat makers.”

I think that’s workable, in that it gives journalists some direction on how to handle a breaking news story as it happens, without any on-the-spot navel gazing. But I’d just caution that the second-day coverage has to focus on whether or not the decision by school authorities was valid or not. If recent history has shown us anything, it’s that some schools virtually ignore threats while some overreact — usually because they have rigid policies.

After all, we live in an era in which 7-year-olds are suspended for drawing stick figures squirting a water pistol.

Therefore, the media has to absolutely insist that the schools and authorities have to come clean about exactly what the threat was. Look at the situation in Farmington, where a MySpace page so alarmed authorities. No one will say on the record what happened. And as is almost always the case, the public fills in the gap with speculation and rumor.

And the media shouldn’t let claims of students’ right to privacy stop them from digging. Once the police are called and classes disrupted, student privacy no longer is an issue. It’s a criminal issue, and an question of whether or not the government is doing its job. That is a matter of public concern.

Here’s an article on what the bomb threat recipient should do.