The news coverage of Columbine helped turn the tragedy into an international phenomenon.

PARKLAND, FLORIDA; SANTA FE, TEXAS; Aztec, New Mexico; Roseburg, Oregon; Marysville, Washington; Santa Monica, California; Newtown, Connecticut—no matter where it happens, the news coverage of school shootings unfolds in almost exactly the same way every time. The first reports appear, often filled with inaccuracies, especially about the gunman (it’s almost always a man) and the number of victims. Then come the updated stories, which attempt to correct the information that was initially wrong. This is when we start to see reporters interviewing survivors or family members of those killed—sometimes accosting traumatized individuals while they’re still wearing bloodstained clothes. Next, we learn details about the perpetrator, and a list of the dead and injured circulates. There’s almost always a candlelight vigil of some sort. More interviews; politicians and community leaders offer thoughts and prayers. The president addresses the nation. Gun-control advocates plead for stronger gun laws. Gun-rights advocates remind us not to politicize the tragedy. Follow-up pieces investigate how the perpetrator acquired his weapons, what motivated him, and whether or not there were warning signs. A hero story emerges. We return to conversations about the need for more mental health resources. There are protests. The news cycle moves on; satellite trucks pack up and leave town, returning again, maybe, on the first, or fifth, or—as we’re doing now—20th anniversary.

It’s a script the media know and perform well. We should—we helped write it on April 20, 1999.

that follow school shootings—at press time, there had been a handful this year—Columbine High School is almost always mentioned. That’s despite the fact that