One week ago today, our nation experienced one of the greatest domestic tragedies in recent history. The 33 lives lost at Virginia Tech sent shockwaves through communities and college campuses across the country.

Today, we are left to wonder: Are we safe at school? What can be done to improve campus safety, and what can be done to better detect signs that a student may be contemplating a violent act?

These are all important questions brought forth by the horrible event at Virginia Tech. Equally important is solemn and respectful remembrance of the victims. Many promising young lives were ended abruptly, leaving hundreds of family members and friends searching for answers that they may never find.

There are other aspects of the tragedy, which seem far less important, but have nonetheless received widespread media attention. As is often the case in instances of phenomenal violence, I can’t help but marvel at the way network news stations have covered the Virginia Tech tragedy.

As most people have likely learned by now, the shooter sent a package to NBC headquarters in the midst of his killing spree. The package included dramatic photos of the shooter brandishing firearms, as well as video footage and an expletive-laden manifesto, detailing the shooter’s justifications for the act.

The degree to which these materials have been distributed across the airwaves and online is absurd, but not particularly surprising.

In the aftermath of the Columbine massacre, some reporters raised concerns that extensively publicizing and giving attention to the perpetrators of such a crime might fulfill the intent of murderers to gain notoriety and exercise power over others.

These concerns seem to have fallen entirely by the wayside in the current tragedy. The killer’s name and face have been published on nearly every news website and in every newspaper, including The Daily.

If the purpose of disseminating basic information, such as a name and “mug shot,” is simply to inform, what can be said of the images seen on the home pages of news networks like MSNBC, CNN and ABC?

These images, often differing from network to network, likely for original appeal, have depicted the killer in sensational poses: wearing black gloves, pointing a gun at the camera lens and raising a hammer with an aggressive scowl.

On some Web sites, hyperlinks built into banners at the top of the page offer immediate access to video clips created by the killer. Of course, these video clips and photos can also be seen on television.

I am left to ask: For what purpose? How will the mass distribution of these images, videos and writings work to improve campus safety or comfort the afflicted family members and friends of the victims?

The answer is clear: It will not. The sensationalized media coverage of the Virginia Tech tragedy will do nothing to improve safety or to help the afflicted heal.

The coverage will profit news networks and advertisers considerably, however, by generating increased viewership and online traffic.

This is what should be expected from a popular media that has exploited other recent violent events, including the aforementioned Columbine incident, 9/11 and, to an overwhelming degree, the Iraq War.

Has lethal violence become a spectator sport in our society? If it has, how did this come to be? Are news networks showing us what we want to see, or are they influencing what we want to see? Has the line between news and entertainment been blurred past the point of differentiability?

When I see the menacing glare of one of the worst murderers in U.S. history dominating media coverage only days after 32 innocent people died at his hands — exactly the way he would have wanted it — I am left searching for the disturbing answers to these questions.

Reach reporter Andrew D. Brown at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.