The Austin American-Statesman made a joint decision as a newsroom to release the footage to the public.
A controversy has erupted over one local newspaper’s decision to release previously unseen footage of the tragic shooting in Uvalde. The Austin-American Statesman released four minutes of footage that shows the gunman walking into the school and releasing fire. It also shows police officers standing in the hallway after the gunman barricaded himself in a classroom. At one painful point, a police officer is seen casually pumping hand sanitizer into his hands while shots ring through the hallways.
The mayor of Uvalde has already spoken out against the newspaper’s decision to release this footage, calling it “one of the most chicken things I’ve ever seen.” Others are celebrating the decision as a commitment to truth. This is the most recent, and evolved, example of the Emmett Till effect of showing graphic visuals of crime scenes.
To get a better understanding of the newspaper’s decision to release this video to the public, Katie spoke with Tony Plohetski, an award-winning journalist who works for The Austin American-Statesman. He joined the Austin American-Statesman in 2000 and since 2013, has worked in partnership with KVUE-TV, Austin’s ABC affiliate. He was involved in the joint decision by the newsroom to release the video to the public, as well as the decision to edit the sound of screaming out of the audio for the footage. Both decisions have been criticized and celebrated roundly.
Editor’s Note: The video footage is disturbing. If you don’t want to watch it, you can get an understanding of what takes place via Katie’s conversation with Tony below. You can read a condensed version of the conversation here, or watch the full interview in the video below.
Katie Couric: In the video, there seems to be this weird cavalier atmosphere outside this classroom. At one point, one of the officers pumped hand sanitizer into his hands, and at another point, two officers fist bumped. Can you tell me what you learned from the video about the activity that was going on and the sense of urgency that these officers felt or didn’t feel?
Tony Plohetski: For those who haven’t seen the video, I just want to describe those few moments. I think one of the things that’s so striking about this video is that we see a man with an AR-15 walk down the hall of an elementary school. We see and hear him open fire. And then about three minutes later, we see a number of local police officers arrive at the scene, and they do exactly what experts say they are supposed to do: They run toward the gunfire. There is an exchange of gunfire. And you actually see the officers get blown back by the gunfire.
I think in the minds of experts who have viewed this video and know the information, that’s really where the problem starts because, after that, there seemed to be no real concerted effort to regroup, strategize, or figure out how to move in toward the shooter. And what experts say is, when you’re faced with a situation like that, you must do anything urgently. You do not have time to spare. You have no seconds to waste.
Tell me a little bit about the decision process your newsroom went through, and why you ultimately chose to release the tape.
I want to be clear with people that this was a very, very difficult decision. But as journalists, from day one, we have been calling for transparency about what happened on that day. We’ve been consistently trying to seek information. And so far, officials have simply not released information.
There have just been so many contradictory statements that have been made from day one. So we found ourselves in this situation where we had the video, and we had to really consider what the public interest was, and what the impact of releasing the tape might be.
Certainly, as you mentioned, we have faced criticism, but I also want to say we also have heard from people who are thankful that we were able to provide some element of truth to them as well.
Also, as a company, we did reach out to the family members we had contact information for. We spoke to those family members, and one of the requests that we received was that we edit the screams from the video. After much consideration, we did comply with that request. And candidly, Katie, we’ve gotten criticism for that, too. Some people have told us this needs to be a completely unedited version of the truth, and that the screams should’ve been left in.
Was there any conversation exploring the public’s right to know versus the need to protect the families of the dead?
Yes, and ultimately, we all reached the same consensus. Our obligation to the public is to report, and our duty is to err on the side of reporting. That’s what we do as journalists. We don’t wait for the government to do the right thing. At the end of the day, our obligation is to share information as prudently as we can, as soon as we have it.
But one thing I want to point out about the video is that while it does tell an incredibly important story about the police response, one question that it does not answer is the why. By that I mean, what information did those officers have in those moments? What directions were they being given? Officer statements are still being given, so it’s still unclear whether that question will be answered.
