Words & ReflectionsA Neighbor Wonders About Her Role as a Media Source‘Had my attempt to honor dear friends actually caused harm?’By Audrey McCollumTears well up as I start writingthis—sadness and horror surgethrough a veil of persisting disbelief.On Saturday, January 27, my husband,Bob, our daughter, Cindy, herhusband, John, and I gathered arounda gently bubbling cheese fondue incelebration of Bob’s 76th birthday. Aswe toasted his future, someonepounded on our door. When Cindyflung it open, a Dartmouth Collegeprofessor—almost incoherent—begged for help. She had gone to ournearest neighbors for dinner and foundthem, Half and Susanne Zantop, collapsedon a bloodied floor.Cindy and Bob, a physician, spedover while I called 911. Then I waited,wondering what had befallen our cherishedfriends and whether my familywas in danger, too. I waited until mydread spurred me to phone the oneperson who might tell me something—the Sunday editor of our regional newspaper,the Valley News. Since I wroteoccasional features for the paper, Iknew about scanners that monitor policecommunications.“Steve, something awful has happenednext door; have you heard anythingon the scanner?”“No,” he said. “Oh, wait a minute.”Silence, then his somber voice.“They are saying ‘two down at 115Trescott.’” “Down” is police talk fordead, I think he added.An eternity passed. I looked out thedoor every few minutes, as though Icould will Bob and Cindy back. Then Isaw them dragging along the driveway,heads bowed, shoulders slumped. Apoliceman walked behind them, butwhen I rushed out calling, “Don’t tellme they’re dead,” he turned away.“Mom, come in the house,” Cindysaid, and she told me Half and Susannehad been murdered.We went through robotic motionsuntil the Valley News editor phoned toask if I would give an interview. Withouthesitation, I agreed. I wanted toshield Bob and Cindy, who could barelyspeak. And I believe in the mission ofthe press: to inquire, to inform, tofoster understanding.In 1945, I was the editor in chief ofmy college newspaper, aiming for acareer in journalism. But my mother’spuzzling psychiatric illness steered myinquisitive mind toward psychologyinstead. I practiced psychotherapy for50 years, but continued writing, too.My Valley News editor was a strict mentor,insisting on clarity and accuracy inevery phrase. His high standards, alongwith daily perusal of the Valley Newsand The New York Times, shaped myconfidence in the press.“I’m sorry to have to ask you aboutthis,” the reporter said when he arrived.“It’s really alright,” I reassured him.Me, the mom, me, the therapist, me,the fellow writer. Me, still strangelycomposed.His story, published the next morning,was factual and dignified. Thatday, requests for interviews began comingin by phone, e-mail, fax and byknocks on our door—we finally lostcount at 47.“Mom, write a statement to handout to the media,” Cindy advised beforeshe and John left for home, butthat sounded too mechanical. I wantedto honor Half and Susanne with spontaneous,heartfelt words.At five a.m. on January 29, the technicalcrew for “Good Morning America”began setting up satellite connections.At 8:15 that morning, Bob and I werebeing interviewed live.“Ms. McCollum, you were friends ofthe Zantops, you’ve been neighborsfor a number of years. Tell us somethingabout them, if you would,” saidJack Ford, the host.“A few minutes ago, they were describedas active members of theDartmouth community,” I said. “Theywere, in fact, active members of theworld, and I think for that reason theloss is an international loss, a tragedyfor the world. What I mean by that is—partly because of their background asGermans, their learning about theHolocaust, their awareness of what canhappen to a country if the citizenry arecomplacent about what goes on—theywere passionately involved in everyaspect of life. They were politicallyextremely aware, astute; they were catalysts;they energized a wide circle ofcolleagues and friends to learn aboutthe political process, to learn about thesignificant issues—to get out and vote.And they became citizens of the U.S.only three years ago after agonizingover it because they were deeply rootedin Germany.”Jack Ford broke in: “It sounds likeit’s not an understatement to describethem as beloved members of theDartmouth community.” He didn’t getit. This intelligent, experienced newsmandidn’t comprehend. I poundedthe sofa in frustration.But when I viewed the tape as Iprepared to write this article, I saw himglancing at his watch, perhaps scarcelyhearing my words. Yet he had allowedme one minute, 16 seconds for mymessage. I thank him for that.In contrast, we worked with “Dateline”for five and a half hours, resultingin a glimpse of my tearful face and veryfew words. Other interviews werescheduled, cancelled, rescheduled,then some shows were never aired. Ididn’t see all the coverage, but in termsof my aim of portraying two remarkablepeople, our grueling TV timeseemed mostly squandered.86 <strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 2001
When Journalists Arrive…Much of the early print coveragethat I saw was responsible and broadlyaccurate, although words I never usedwere attributed to me: “pool of blood,”for example—the image revolts me.But a grievous miscommunication waspublished in The (London) Times.Combining material from our 90-minute interview with information fromothers, the reporter wrote a detailedstory that I read online. My gaze frozeon these words about Susanne: “Thisvigilance took the form of a lifelongdetermination to dissociateherself from Germany andits history.”Wrong! Susanne dedicatedher scholarly life toexploring German literatureand the history that shapedit; she took students to Germanyon terms abroad; she visited herfamily. I was angry and embarrassedthat this misconception seemed to emanatefrom me.Worse, though, was my sense ofbetrayal in an interview with a Bostonjournalist. I told all reporters that thepolice had asked my husband not todescribe what he saw that dreadfulnight and most accepted that. Thiswriter guided me through a thoughtfuldiscussion of the Zantops, her mannerearnest and respectful. Then, after anhour, she suddenly blurted, “Is it truetheir throats were cut?” I almost threwup. “For God’s sake! These were mydear friends!” I protested.She flushed, apologized and describedthe relentless pressure she andcolleagues were under to supply everydetail to their editors. Her newspaperand others were competing intenselyto attract the most readers.Relentless pressure for us all.Most mornings, my husband and Iwent skiing, renewing our sense of lifein the bracing air, enjoying our rhythmicbody movements, spotting tracksof tiny critters in the snow. But our 46-year marriage was strained by the mediademands. The interviews torturedBob, reviving the ghastly memory ofthe sight he had seen next door. Theyinterfered with his style of coping: compartmentalizinghis pain, not allowingit to engulf him. I urged him to avoidthe sessions, and at times he did. Still,he was bombarded by phone calls:“Just one question, Doctor McCollum,”a frenetic reporter would plead.For me, the more thoughtful interviewswere therapeutic, allowing me togo over and over the tragedy like atraumatized child after surgery. Thereiterations slowly anchored my senseof reality; I’d been sliding in and out ofdisbelief, as though this must be a filmlike Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho”—a filmthat would end.‘I find the media spins hurtful,painful and your participationseems to me to feed the frenzy.’Yet the intense discussions took theirtoll, and Bob worried as I developedwhat I called “mediatitis”: a hoarsevoice and dry cough. I kept misplacingthings and, normally fleet of foot, Ibegan staggering. One evening I slidinto a hot bath to soak the aches away,and 90 minutes later Bob found meslumbering in an empty tub. Fortunately,the drain had slowly leaked.“Why are you doing all this?” Hisvoice was harsh with irritation.“Because I need to,” I snapped. Sincelate childhood, when I tried to be thelinchpin holding together a severelytroubled family, the capacity to meetchallenges has been a foundation ofmy self-esteem. This seemed like anothertraumatic time in which I couldbe useful, and I had received notes ofappreciation, one from Dartmouth’spresident and his wife.Yet I couldn’t fully answer Bob’squestion. I needed to sort through themedia experience, so I began workingon an article that ran in The Dartmouthon February 22.But on February 16, The BostonGlobe published a story that sunderedthe community. In part, it read, “Investigatorsbelieve the killings…werecrimes of passion, most likely resultingfrom an adulterous affair involving HalfZantop, according to authorities closeto the case.”On February 21, a retraction appearedon the front page of the Globe.But those words failed to assuage theanguish stirred among the couples’friends and daughters. There was outrage,too, and some of that leaked onme.“Audrey, I think it is really best notto talk to the media at all. They sensationalizeabsolutely everything andmisquote everyone.” This e-mail messagecame from one of the Zantops’intimates, a brilliant scholar, a wiseand warm mentor to students, and afriend of mine. “I do thinkyou should know that theresponse to your statementshas not been uniformly positive….I find the media spinshurtful, painful and your participationseems to me to feedthe frenzy,” she wrote a fewdays later. “I don’t see what can comeout of telling the press and TV thatSusanne and Half were wracked byprofessional anxieties—the Globe usesthat to imply that Susanne’s work habitsdrove Half to affairs….”Reading her words, I felt drenchedwith shame.I searched the Globe. For a backgroundstory, I had indeed mentionedthe Zantops’ academic worries. But sohad others. “The way [Susanne] pushedherself all the time was very hard on alot of us, including Half,” said a colleague.I felt relieved that I wasn’t alonein painting a realistic portrait of theirlives.Had I stoked the media frenzy? Hadmy attempt to honor dear friends actuallycaused harm?Frantic, I put these questions to aNewsweek correspondent who hadinterviewed me, then stayed in touchby phone and e-mail. In his communications,I had sensed integrity. “Hereare my thoughts about whether yourcomments ‘feed’ the media frenzy,” hewrote in reply. “I don’t think they do.What they do is feed the frenzy surroundingyou specifically, because oncereporters see you quoted, more willcall…. But as to the story as a whole,your participation…has no effect…onthe media’s appetite for reporting thestory. If you don’t talk, they move on tothe next potential source…. We’ve al-<strong>Nieman</strong> Reports / Fall 2001 87