Abetted by social media, homicide becomes a spectacle

The video of the Virginia shootings posted by Bryce Williams is a frightful twist in an age of online sharing and ubiquitous video documentation.

August 28, 2015 04:02 am | Updated November 16, 2021 04:26 pm IST

A combination of still images from the video posted to the Facebook account of Bryce Williams, the shooter. Photo: Reuters/Facebook

A combination of still images from the video posted to the Facebook account of Bryce Williams, the shooter. Photo: Reuters/Facebook

In one sad sense there was nothing new, or even very unusual, about the televised killing of two journalists in Virginia on Wednesday morning.

Death on TV has occurred with frightening regularity ever since the advent of the medium: Jack Ruby’s shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, in 1963; and the Sept. 11, 2001, fall of the World Trade Center. The prospect of death appearing suddenly on our screens is as common as it is ghoulish.

Yet in another way, the video of the Virginia shootings posted by Bryce Williams, whose real name is Vester Lee Flanagan and who is thought to be the gunman who killed two of his former co-workers at the television station WDBJ, is a frightful twist in an age of online sharing and ubiquitous video documentation.

The killings appear to have been skilfully engineered for maximum distribution, and to sow maximum dread, over Twitter, Facebook and mobile phones. The video Flanagan shows is an up-close, first-person execution. It was posted only after his social media accounts had become widely known, while the police were in pursuit of the killer. And unlike previous televised deaths, these were not merely broadcast, but widely and virally distributed, playing out with the complicity of thousands, perhaps millions, of social networking users who could not help but watching and sharing. The horror was the dawning realisation, as the video spread across the networks, that the killer had anticipated the moves; that he had been counting on the mechanics of these services and on our inability to resist passing on what he had posted.

For many, that realisation came too late. On these services, the killer knew, you often hit retweet, like or share before you realize just quite what you have done.

Twitter and Facebook moved quickly to suspend the accounts of Flanagan. But not quickly enough.

By the time his social presence had come down, his videos had been shared widely by journalists and ordinary users, jumping beyond the Internet onto morning TV broadcasts, and downloaded and reposted across the Internet — where, with some searching, they will most likely remain accessible indefinitely.

Also found after the killings was a demo reel posted to YouTube, showing Flanagan’s various appearances as a TV news anchor and reporter.

It is unsurprising, given his familiarity with the subject, that he appeared well versed with what has become the media ritual of killing. — New York Times News Service

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.