Not speaking for Bitt, but, off the top of my head, here's the problem with the coverage, what little I've been able to stomach of it:

1. Anchors, reporters, etc. reporting rumors as facts. You're covering a horrifying, tragic situation. The people involved are shell-shocked. Some of them are telling you the truth, some of them are telling you half-truths, some of them are telling you what their buddy said they saw. Wait until you have confirmation from authoritative sources before you throw something out there that can muddy the waters, confuse those who really need to know, etc.

2. Reporters at press conferences ask the same question six different ways, even though the principals have said they are not going to answer those questions. While I'd love to see that kind of stick-to-it-ive-ness in the White House press corps, it's rather unnecessary from the media circus that's on the VT massacre story. There's a good reason the cops/University officials aren't telling you things, and asking the same question in slightly different styles to try to squeeze a story out of them is not helping the situation

3. Last but certainly not least, pretending this is the only story in the world. It is certainly the most "compelling" story to emerge in the last couple days. It's certainly one that has many elements that make good "news stories." But 33 dead in Iraq probably happens before daybreak. I recognize that after 4+ years of war coverage the American public isn't as "interested" in the stories coming out of Iraq, and I know that the soldiers who are dying there know the risks, whereas the kids at VPI were innocents who had no reason to believe they were in danger. But can we please have some perspective? In an hour newscast, give me 10 minutes on the shooting and 40 minutes of other news that's important, but maybe not as interesting.

So, basically, the same gripes that everyone in America has had about broadcast news ever since it stopped being a loss leader and started being a cash cow.