Although the package gave an insightful look at a very troubled individual, it didn’t answer the great question of why.
Aside from the completely unnecessary and unwarranted murder of so many individuals, another aspect of the story that troubles me is the media coverage of the now infamous package of information. As in other recent cases the media has, in my opinion, gone too far in its explicit disclosure of all the contents of the information that the killer sent to NBC.
Imagine if you were one of the victims’ family members; would you want to relive the last moments of your childs’ life through images released to the media? Even worse, if you were one of the victims that was shot or saw classmates shot, would you really want to hear this man rail against the victims as if he knew them all?
I don’t think so.
And since the latest news cycle has past, I know that I’m no longer thinking in a speculative manner, as many of the victims and their families have expressed disappointment in the media’s decision to release the killer’s photos and videos.
Ultimately, I think the media is acting as an enabler to the sick purposes that the killer intended this package for. Obviously the killer knew that his image and his words would be heard if he sent this package to NBC. Essentially he knew that he would be glorified and immortalized by doing this, and now the media has done exactly that.
Too much emphasis has been placed on the killer and not enough attention has been paid to the people who lost their lives in such a senseless way. Fortunately the media has wised up a little in the last day, and begun expressing praise for the lives that the victims led. I think the media would be better served by continuing in that direction and the nation would be better served if the killer (his actions, intent, purpose, behavioral patterns, etc.) was thoroughly investigated by law enforcement and psychological professionals, not the media. And should any significant findings come of these investigations (findings that affect us all), then make that information part of the news coverage.
I know that in this day and age of 24 news coverage, home-made videos, full-disclosure social networking and youtube.com, we have become accustomed to seeing everything about everything. In fact, if people use any level of discretion, even if it’s to protect their family, it’s frowned upon.
Perhaps the only “normal” thing that I’ve witnessed from Tom Cruise in recent years was his refusal to allow the media to take pictures of he and Katie Holmes’ baby. But when this occurred, the media jumped on it and made a big hoopla about this lack of disclosure, and connected it to his Scientologist beliefs, and pretty much wrote it off as crazy. Honestly, I don’t see what’s wrong with protecting your baby from the media mob. I think the people who are crazy are the ones who hide out in bushes with cameras for weeks, trying to take one photo of the baby.
When Saddam Hussein was hanged, it wasn’t enough that the tv media showed everything up to the point just before his body was dropped through the floor, people wanted to see the whole thing. So millions of people signed on to youtube.com to watch the unadulterated, unedited version of the hanging.
For literally a split second, Janet Jackson’s boob was on display at the 2004 Superbowl Halftime show. Of those that were actually watching, many had no idea what they had seen. On top of that tens of millions of people would have never known or seen the “wardrobe malfunction” if it weren’t for the news. For several days the world became acquainted with Janet’s pastie, as the clip was on constant loop, making a big issue out of something that was an absolute non-issue.
We witnessed a similar occurrence later in 2004 in the aftermath of the “basketbrawl” involving the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers. ESPN ran the entire brawl on a 20 minute repeat throughout the course of the night. And it’s no conincidence to me that the following day there was a huge fight on the field between opposing college football teams (see 11.22.04 posting "The Media Again...").
The media is making a habit of unnecessarily divulging visual information that could easily be explained verbally. I think these visual images do unnecessary damage and amplify instances that don’t need to be amplified. If it was so reprehensible to see Janet’s breast, then why repeat it in slow motion on the news. In my opinion showing the basketbrawl led to other brawls in the immediate aftermath. In the current instance surrounding Virginia Tech, I suspect that we’ll see copycats in the future because the media has, in a sense, glorified him by displaying these images.
The only instance where discretion seems to have been at play is the sad story of Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin being killed by a stingray last labor day. There was video footage of it, but those who were close to Irwin committed to not releasing the footage to the media even though I know there are many people who wanted to see it for themselves.
I’m glad they didn’t air the footage, and I just wish that the media would take that example and use it as a model. The story of his death was verbally told, and each of us can imagine what the scene might have looked like for ourselves. But nothing, from a news perspective, was lost by the decision to not air the footage.
Discretion can still be a good thing!
Out of respect for the victims of Monday’s shootings at Virginia Tech, I just wish that the media would demonstrate some level of humanity, and desist from glorifying the killer, focus on what we can learn from the situation, and honor the lives of those that were lost.
-Maelstrom
2 comments:
Your last comment is the most vital one. "...focus on what we can from the situation..." The moral of this story is, when someone feels unimportant and they are starved for loving attention, they go to extremes to get that affection. The killer is not being glorified by the news. The news is showing that a psycologically challenged and abused person can become a murderer when neglected.
I do disagree:
Posting the text of the killer was essential as to determining WHY the shooting happend. Trusting the government or some other institution to figure out the cause and then transport it via the media is neglecting the interest the government/institution has. The interest (support of gun laws, ...) taints the outcome of the research.
Therefore, we have to figure out the WHY by ourself, use our own brain and the information given by NBC.
Many said this guy is mentally insane, and I do agree. However, many times in history the people being called "insane" gave the clearest picture of the society and the faults of their society, because it needs a wierd mind to capture the short-commings. So, Please, read the text once more!
P.S.: I wonder whether you read the old comments.
Post a Comment