Who are these boys that killed five innocent people, four of them children?  What would possess middle school youth to plan an attack on their classmates and teachers?  What kind of kids are these?  When looking at these boys, there are multiple ways to answer such questions.  The media has chosen key frames to explain who the boys are and how this tragedy could have come about and created hypothesis from this information. The bold media coverage privileges the audience to formulate an image of the boys in the following ways.  With catch phrases such as “ambush” and “bloody rampage,” it is not surprising that the child shooters of the Jonesboro “massacre” are framed as cold-blooded killers(1).  This frame coincides with that of the sweet, innocent children that the boys appeared to be.  One boy who “went to church when his parents didn’t” and the other who was  “an attentive gun-safety student and avid computer-game player”(2).  Regardless of the details, the boys Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, are framed in two ways:

• Johnson and Golden are young murderers
• Johnson and Golden are ignorant aggressors and victims of circumstance

       Many of the articles use the frames interchangeably fueling debate, while others target a specific hypothesis of reasoning.  In doing this, the media attempts to appear impartial, weighing all of the options, but visuals such as Golden shooting a pistol and headlines such as “Two camouflage-clad boys arrested…” on a “bloody rampage” may be more narrowly focused than first believed.  These are rhetorical devices introduced by theorists Pan and Kosicki as a means of proving a hypothesis.  The media also uses testimonies, observations, and the boys’ histories to test these hypotheses.  The Pan and Kosicki model entails that; “The hypothesis-testing features result from the nature of news as a form of knowledge and journalism as a knowledge-acquiring discipline using the logical empirical principles of the social sciences.”  As journalists learn about the “truths” of a situation, they relay this back to the reader and theoretically allow them to decide for themselves, although their perspectives are always embedded within the story.  The journalists reporting on the Jonesboro shooting attempt to relay the truths about these young boys by stating hypothesis and testing them through analysis.
 
 

Many of the stories about the Jonesboro shooting tell of the evil, premeditated murder of innocent children and a gentle teacher.  Emphasis on the arsenal of weapons, the families of the victims and clear targeting to kill highlight this first frame.  The hypothesis to be tested suggests that Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden are cold-blooded killers.  These reports are backed up by stories of the boys with little or no remorse, their previous criminal behavior, and their obvious knowledge of what they were about to do.  One article states, “Then there is Mitchell, the would-be gang member, and Andrew an ‘evil-acting’ little thug who bragged of wanting to use his hunting rifle on fellow students.  The boys stand accused of donning camouflage from head to toe and cutting down classmates and teachers in a well-planned kill zone.”(3).  These statements are very suggestive and reinforce the first hypothesis well.

 

This same article discusses how some thought the boys were well mannered and gentle, but the majority of support goes to the hypothesis of intentional malice.  With catch phrases such as “cutting down” and “well-planned kill zone,” it is obvious the indent of the article.  Another article states that the “two shooters rained bullets into a crowd leaving the building”(4).  It is difficult to argue ignorance of action when clear statements like these frame the actions of the boys.  Even when the trial began and Johnson apologizes to the families, the article states that he does so while “reading a statement he had written”(5).  This disclaimer discredits the sincerity behind his words.  The premeditated aspect of the case is again emphasized when a deputy prosecutor from the trial states that, “Afterward, the boys took off running through the woods, toward the van, which they had loaded with camping gear, food and a cache of ammunition”(6).  It would be impossible to claim that the boys did not plan the attack after all of the claims made.  The articles frame them as knowledgeable murderers who planned out a retaliation attack and carried through.

Hypothesis 2:  Johnson and Golden are ignorant aggressors

    The second hypothesis that is tested in the articles suggests that Johnson and Golden are innocent children who are the victims of ignorance, circumstance and situation.  Although, there is a constant frame of malice to combat, the boys of the Jonesboro shooting are presented as unknowing participants in a childish prank.  When Mitchell made a statement in court he says, “I really thought that no one would be hurt…I have caused pain.  I have also asked God for forgiveness and I pray that he will heal the lives of the people who have been hurt by my actions”(7).  Johnson claimed that he meant to shoot over their heads and that he did not want to kill anyone.  The fact that the boys brought loaded guns to school and set up the ambush is downplayed to help this point.  The reader is asked to question how these young boys of 11and 13 could possibly mean to kill their classmates, especially for something as petty as a relationship breakup.

    One article quotes a Mrs. Holt, a pastor’s wife who had Johnson over to her home frequently, as saying, “He was one you never had to call down, say ‘Get quiet, let’s don’t do that.’  You never had to do Mitch that way.  He was always so polite, so well-mannered”(8).  This framing clearly supports the hypothesis with exemplars and depictions, or direct examples to sustain the intended proof.  The fact that a pastor’s wife observed these characteristics of Johnson plays into the greater societal story of childlike innocence.  The follow up comments in the article of Johnson being dropped off at “a run-down, one-story frame house in nearby Herman”(9) merely furthers the previous assumptions and fuels a new argument as to the state of Mitchell’s life thus far.  Golden’s attorneys went so far as to say that Andrew “took part in the attack but was insane at the time and not mentally competent to understand today’s hearing”(10).  Although it states that the judge did not accept this plea, the frame is important to the character of the boy.  Golden was silent even after he was sentenced.  The reader is asked to accept the possibility of an ignorant participation in the murder of the young children and teacher.  The defense for this frame is the fact that these boys could not know what they were doing.  Even if they packed up all of the ammunition and guns, they still did not realize that five people would be dead and that they would be spending the rest of their growing years in jail.  Their ignorance and youthful innocence is the ultimate plea.

Conclusion

    Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden came to school and killed four classmates and a teacher.  They pulled a fire alarm and set themselves up as snipers.  Regardless of the frame, the actions of these boys were horrific and sifting through the evidence to point a finger is only the final part of the incident.  The media attempted to show numerous sides of the shooters, but ultimately, their actions were the deciding factor for many people.  The media backed up people’s initial reaction to the boys with catch phrases, exemplars and visuals.  Whether you thought they were silly boys who didn’t know what they were doing or vicious killers in adolescent bodies, the media consistently framed these boys in countless articles.  Their characters were debated and their actions were analyzed again and again.  The hypotheses claimed to have the answer and then the media went back and asked the questions.  To one theorist Gamson, “a frame is a ‘central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning’ to events related to an issue”(11).  The media framed the boys of the Jonesboro shooting to give some excuse or reason for the horrors of the killings.  By understanding the boys, one can attempt to know what could have happened to lead two adolescent boys to initiate a shooting spree.  The hypotheses were stated and tested by the news media, but it is still up to each individual to decide what really happened.