What We Don't Know: the Media Legacy of the Columbine Massacre
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
i WHAT WE DON’T KNOW: THE MEDIA LEGACY OF THE COLUMBINE MASSACRE AND PRESENT-DAY PREVENTION by CHELSEA DAGGETT B.A., SUNY College at Potsdam, 2010 M.F.A., Boston University, 2013 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Media Studies 2017 ii This dissertation entitled: What We Don’t Know: The Media Legacy of the Columbine Massacre and Present-day Prevention written by Chelsea Daggett has been approved for the Department of Media Studies Dr. Elizabeth Skewes Dr. Paul Voakes ____________________________________ Dr. Nabil Echchaibi ___________________________________ Dr. Stewart Hoover ___________________________________ Dr. John Ackerman Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. IRB protocol # 17-0169 iii Daggett, Chelsea (Ph.D., Media Studies) What We Don’t Know: The Media Legacy of the Columbine Massacre and Present-day Prevention Dissertation directed by Associate Professor Elizabeth Skewes The Columbine Massacre holds an important place in America’s cultural memory. This study examines why this particular mass shooting, as opposed to hundreds of others, made such a strong impact. Using Conjunctural analysis, I summarize the historical factors that made this shooting a ruptural moment that represented the Moral Panic over youth delinquency in the 1990s. This study also examines how the vibrant narrative about the Columbine Massacre, complete with trench coats, Nazis, and bullied outcasts still echoes across media coverage of mass shootings today despite its weak relationship to the facts of the case. Content analysis guides conclusions about just how far removed discussions of prevention were from most of the media coverage of the shooting which primarily focused on victims. Prevention remains stagnant today as sharing a Facebook post becomes synonymous with gun violence prevention advocacy in the public mind. After interviewing prevention experts who hope to deepen the conversation about mass shootings to address their complexity, I suggest a new media model that can inform the audiences of ways to affect real change. Using historical analysis, content, analysis, and interviews with prevention experts, this study concludes that present-day prevention is limited by a narrative of senselessness and focus on victims that dominates media coverage today. iv CONTENTS CHAPTER I. Public Memory Revised: The Columbine Massacre and Politics .............1 Overcoming Entrenched and Rigid Responses ...................................3 Defining Spaces for Intervention ........................................................9 Profiling Toxicity: Masculinity and Local Cultures .........................12 Moral Panic and The Media as Control Culture ...............................14 Public memory and the Repressed ....................................................17 “Alternative Audience” Studies: Negotiated Readings of Trauma ...20 Text/Audience/Context: Three Sides to Every Crisis .......................23 Summary of Chapters .......................................................................26 II. Mapping the Rupture: The Columbine Massacre as History ..................29 Visual Metaphors ..............................................................................30 Visual Models ...................................................................................37 Describing the Conjuncture: Rhetorical Tools .................................43 Parents: The Common Thread ..........................................................44 Youth Culture and Delinquency: Out of Control ..............................47 The Invisible Crime Wave and Moral Education .............................52 The Invisible Crime Wave and Self-Protection ................................59 Loaded Significance..........................................................................67 III. Repression and Prevention: Media Frames and The Columbine Massacre .................................................................69 The Downs' Issue-Attention Cycle: A Matter of Hope .....................70 v Framing the Agenda: How Stakeholders Use Mass Shootings ........72 Capturing the Cycle at the Local and National Level .......................75 Results: Summarizing the Split .........................................................77 News Routines Framing Prevention: Bullying and the “Blame Game” ............................................................................85 Local Ownership of Sense—lessness ...............................................90 The Persistence of Myths: Illustrating Downs’ Issue-Attention Cycle........................................................................95 Media Models for Engagement .........................................................99 IV. Mobilizing Emotion: The Politics of Prevention after The Columbine Massacre ...............................................................101 Emotion as Political Strategy ..........................................................103 “Alternative Audiences” Incorporating Negotiated Readings ........107 Interview Subjects ...........................................................................109 What model could that be? .............................................................110 Stage Four Hopelessness.................................................................113 Best Practices in Messaging and Communication ..........................120 Information Sharing and Adaptive Strategies .................................132 How can we address the issues associated with media coverage of mass shootings from a systems perspective? ..................................141 V. Revising the Columbine Massacre Narrative through Education in Media ............................................................................143 Research Question 1: Why was this shooting so impactful over the long-term and not another? Why 1999 as the historical moment of rupture? .........................................................................145 vi Research Question 2: How has media coverage of Columbine framed, narrowed, or shaped common discourses about mass shootings? How do these definitions limit institutional or policy reactions? .........................................................................147 Research Question 3: Who defines which pressures and circumstances are highlighted in media coverage of mass shootings? ..............................................................................150 Research Question 4: What is unique about the perspective of “alternative audiences”? ..................................................................152 Limitations ......................................................................................154 The Proposed Model for Education ................................................158 Best Practices in Reporting and Vocabulary ..................................163 Vocabulary dos/don’ts ....................................................................163 List of best practices .......................................................................164 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………..……………………………………..………167 APPENDIX A. Detailed Independent T-Test Results ....................................................179 END NOTES ……………………………………………………………………….182 vii TABLES Table 3.1 Frequency of Dichotomous Variables, Causes, and Topics .........................78 3.2 Correlations between Topics and dichotomous variables .............................80 3.3 Correlations between “Causes” and Speculation ..........................................81 3.4 Significance of T-tests for Causes, Topics, and Speculation across Reporting Norms ................................................................................82 3.5 Correlations between “Causes,” Dichotomous Variables, and Speculation in New York Times..............................................................84 3.6 Correlations between “Causes,” Dichotomous Variables, and Speculation in Denver Post ....................................................................84 viii FIGURES Figure 1.1 The Media and Control Culture: A Symbiotic Relationship (Hall; 1993, 75-76)...........................................................................................14 2.1 Class & Subcultures: A Version of Cohen’s Model .....................................40 2.2 Visual Model of the 1999 Moral Panic .........................................................41 2.3 National Crime Statistics—FBI ....................................................................52 2.4 The James Alan Fox Model (Levitt; 2004) ...................................................54 2.5 Columbine Memorial Plaque One ................................................................62 2.6 Columbine Memorial Plaque Two ................................................................62 2.7 Columbine Memorial Plaque Three ..............................................................62 2.8 Columbine Memorial Plaque Four................................................................62 4.1 Political Cartoon Published after the Aurora Theater Shooting .................116 1 CHAPTER I Public Memory Revised: The Columbine Massacre and Politics On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold entered Columbine High School in Littleton,