My iPod buzzed, pushing a notification around 2:40 p.m. on April 15th. The New York Times update said, “2 dead and 22 injured in Boston Marathon Blasts, police say.”
      Minutes later, I received another notification. CNN-IBN, the sister station of CNN in India updated, “Two explosions at Boston Marathon finish line, injuries reported.”
       I realized this was something big. As a student journalist and a future broadcaster I am a versatile consumer of the media. I like to switch channels back and forth to compare the quality of the coverage and the resources  news outlets use.
     If you rewind to the Sandy Hook shooting in December, the media came under heavy criticism for the way they covered the story. Several media outlets engaged in rumor-mongering. To add pandemonium to the coverage, talk show hosts debated on gun control within a few hours of the incident.
     Monday was different than recent shootings. A terrorist attack in the United States has a powerful impact and sends shock waves around the globe. The world had their eyes on the Boston Marathon story, which unfolded on a minute-by-minute basis. The international media picked up the story very soon, and the video of the bombings went viral within minutes.
      The local and national media had to be very careful in what they sent out as public information. President Obama in his first statement at 6:10 p.m. ET Monday did not make use of the word “terrorism” while few television networks had flashed it as a terror attack around 4 p.m. that day.
     Media plays a crucial role in these first few hours of a bomb blast. As a journalist you can blow-up the situation, cut to live visuals immediately as they come in, or take a sensitive approach.
     Journalists, who are on-location, have to also deal with personal trauma when exposed to such ghastly acts of terrorism. Although it still remains very important to address questions. -  What is the most important factor of the story? Should I take pictures or offer help? Is it wise to show gory images? Is grief a private emotion for the victim’s family, or should it be made public to explain the severity of the blasts? – These are tough choices to make; they ultimately determine the choice between life and death.
     After the blasts, The Boston Globe ran a front page picture of a woman whose face was clearly visible lying in a pool of blood with similar victims in the background; the editorial board must have faced the questions I have raised above, and it would have been a tedious task to come up with a solution and explanation of why the editorial staff chose what they did.
     Poynter.org, released a reference guide for journalists covering the Boston explosions, “Online conversations about the bombings, especially Twitter, have been loaded with people who are in distress, wondering what has become of humankind. Don’t underestimate that feeling. Spend some time and space honoring the good people who performed selfless acts in a time of crisis and beyond,” Poynter said.
     Most human beings feel uneasy seeing another human in distress; we can relate to and feel the pain the victims go through. Journalists are humans. However, sometimes, like in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, journalists tend to switch sides from sense to sensationalism.
    April 15 will be etched in the dark side of American history. The president, media, law enforcement and medical aid acted as one unit in the pursuit of national interest, keeping American pride alive and getting the city back on track to its usual business. As important as it was to provide aid and help the people in distress, it was equally an act of resilience to inform the citizens in the rest of the nation and the world of the minute-by-minute developments. Overall, the journalists and television networks were efficient in giving out the right information and keeping the public updated.