One of the most common complaints against journalists is, and always has been, the media’s tendency to use tragedy for the gain or recognition of a publication.

Journalists are often shamed for being too invasive and overstepping boundaries, but it’s their job to report what is happening, especially in high-danger situations.

So where does the line exist between news and exploitation?

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., at the end of 2012 is one example. The event could easily be considered as one of the greatest American tragedies of our time.

Even President Barack Obama, who is generally stoic and composed, was visibly and audibly shaken as he addressed the nation.

But in the midst of this tragedy that took the lives of 20 children and six adults, another issue was emerging — the way the event and aftermath were being covered.

As the surviving children were led away from the massacre — with hands on one other’s shoulders for safety — reporters, photographers and videographers swept in and began probing for coverage.

They asked poignant questions about the incident, seeming to ignore the fact that the traumatized individuals were young children trying to comprehend what had just taken place.

Despite outcries from the public that the children were being damaged by reliving the experience so soon after the shooting, some journalists continued to poke and prod to get the story.

Others said the interviews were not conducted for substance to enhance the stories but for “color.”

In addition to losing friends and being subjected to horror most of us will never experience, the children were put under a media-fueled spotlight. I know I couldn’t help but feel a little resentment toward the journalists because I believe somewhere deep down we were resentful of our own need to know what happened that day.

I understand the trepidation and helplessness the people who were watching felt.

A horror occurred that day, and our gut reaction is to protect the children. But we can only truly document the horror of the shootings through their first-person accounts.

Another side of the story in shootings like Sandy Hook is the police department’s reaction. 

The other end of the spectrum includes the police department at the recent community college shooting in Roseburg, Ore., that left nine dead and nine injured.

The sheriff, John Hanlin, refused to name the shooter, who had been enrolled at that same community college.

“I will not name the shooter,” Hanlin said. “I will not give him credit for this horrific act of cowardice. Media will get the name confirmed in time … but you will never hear us use it.”

People on the Internet largely rallied behind Hanlin. They supported the victims, saying their stories, lives and well-being should be placed before the desire of a murderer to have his name known for his heinous actions.

At least in that respect, they are correct. Ever since the days of Herostratus, an arsonist who burned down the temple of Artemis in order to achieve fame through the ages, people have been trying to cement their legacy in abhorrent ways.

Just as the Ephesian officials have tried to erase Herostratus’ name from history, an increasing number of police forces have declined to state the names of perpetrators, especially those who kill multiple people.They fear “copycat killers,” who are influenced by previous killings.

The Oregon shooter left behind a note enumerating his woes and claiming to align himself with demons, in the style of many occult murders.

But none of these are good enough reasons to limit available knowledge. Democracy stems from an informed public, and the only way in which a public can stay informed is from a steady stream of knowledge and new information.

I understand the sensitivities involved in delving into a story. We witnessed terrified children being asked questions after the Sandy Hook massacre we didn’t want to know the answers to — but we, especially those who live in the area, need to know them.

We don’t get to pick and choose when it’s appropriate to have all the facts. We have to have them. As difficult as it is, we need to know.