Virginia Tech - the media coverage

[AuntieEmma[$]]

drmomentum said

It's purely speculative that the release of data will have any effect on the likelihood of copycats.

Yes, of course it's speculative, but I think it is also common-sensical.

And it's not about "data." I think MJ said it well -- there's a difference between someone talking about a creepy killer, and showing the killer's own self-aggrandizing account. The second is likely to be much more inspiring to would-be copycats.

Another thing. Showing the video is REWARDING the killer. It's exactly what he wanted. And it shows that his method of achieving fame WORKED. Is this a message we really want to send?

I'm actually torn about this. I think that in general it's good to get as much information out there as possible. I think it's natural to be curious about what motivated the killer, and I think it's a good thing to satisfy that curiosity (leaving aside the exploitation aspects of the endless repititions). But at the same time, it really bothers me that showing the tape is giving the killer exactly what he wanted, and seems to prove that violence does work.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

drmomentum said

What about so-called crazy people? It's amazing that we can have a discussion about chastising the media for its coverage because of how disturbed people will react when we've just been faced with an example of how a disturbed person has no trouble arming himself. As if regulating free speech should come before plugging this hole in the dike.

Well, of course I would like to see that hole plugged. I didn't mention it here only becuase (1) there is already another thread devoted to that topic, (2) I've been in so many of those discussions in the past that it seems as if there is nothing new to be said, and (3) gun control may be a hopeless cause right now anyway. So assuming that hole will not be plugged, then what?

[emeleel]

What MJ said. Now, if there was an accomplice it would be different, but since it doesn't look that way, there's no problem legally with airing it, I wouldn't think.

Although, I know there is some speculation about someone helping with camera work. Even if that's true, I don't think airing this stuff affects an investigation in any way.

[erik_kosberg]

Even if he had escaped and was on the run and/or there was an accomplice, it would have been perfectly legal to air.

Whether it would have been "a good idea" or "in good taste" would still be open to debate, but there'd have been nothing illegal about it.

[brian_igo]

mjfrombuffalo said

Meanwhile, at what point does Media News Coverage of a Tragedy turn into Wallowing in the Awful Grief of It All? Some of the coverage seems to be a strange, morbid exercise in bathing in sorrow. Which, for the family and friends and students, is wholly appropriate... but weird to witness in those who have no connection to the campus, the kids, the families, and yet feel the need to drench themselves in the tragedy.

For me it was Tuesday morning. When they start doing the man on the street interviews, that's when I have to find something else.

Something about the media coverage that I haven't seen mentioned. Curiously absent this time were the stake-out of the hospitals where the wounded were treated. I don't know if this is because of HIPPA, if the media matured a little (hey, it is theoretically possible), or if the hospitals told the satellite trucks to stay the hell off their property, but I thought it was a big improvement over past disaster coverage.

[drmomentum[$]]

AuntieEmma said

Yes, of course it's speculative, but I think it is also common-sensical.

Common sense is "don't leave the house with the kettle still on the burner." It's not "what most inspires a deranged person?"

The "common sense" of the possibility of rewarding a guy who's dead also makes no sense. The idea that the media is doing what the killer wanted is irrelevant.

The materials (yep - they count as data, sorry if you don't like the word) the killer left behind are news, plain and simple, just like the massacre itself is news. There's a chance that both will inspire copycats, but both are news and should be reported. You have no evidence that one is more inspiring than the other.

And I think that if we didn't fixate on the story for so long, that would be more effective at reducing copycats than withholding actual news from the public.

And of course violence works if what you want to do is cause destruction, achieve notoriety and become despised by society. That lesson is all over the place and you can't make it not true by papering over it. You don't convince people not to do violence if their goals are the natural consequences of violence. Your only chances are to convince them their goals are screwed up or physically prevent them from doing violence.

-JP

[Prepoia[$]]

What I found particularly interesting was that not one of my middle schoolers commented about the event. Although we were busy at school, not one of my 7th or 8th graders was appalled or frightened enough to mention it and wonder what I thought about it or that they were scared. Our poor young people cannot be traumatized anymore by horrific events

[drmomentum[$]]

My kids weren't traumatized by it because I didn't let them watch any TV, and I was the one who told them about it. And then we talked a little about it and what it might mean to them.

[wivabef]

That's what we did, too, JP. I explained how unusual it is which is why all the adults are talking about it.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

drmomentum said

Common sense is "don't leave the house with the kettle still on the burner." It's not "what most inspires a deranged person?"

I don't see why common sense can't be applied to either situation.

The "common sense" of the possibility of rewarding a guy who's dead also makes no sense. The idea that the media is doing what the killer wanted is irrelevant.

Not to me. And I think maybe not in general either. The concept of not rewarding someone for their crime certainly isn't a new one. We don't let murderers profit from writing books about their crimes. We don't let someone who has killed their spouse collect the life-insurance money.

The reward in this case is not money but fame. In a way, the use of video here is similar to the use of video by Palestinian suicide bombers, who routinely make statements for the cameras, which are then used after their deaths both to honor them and to inspire future suicide-bomber candidates.

Many ordinary people will do all sorts of extreme things to get on TV. It's a huge reward, for many people. There are people who will gladly make fools of themselves at American Idol auditions, spill their most private and embarrasing secrets on daytime talk shows, etc., for a few minutes of TV time. I think it makes people feel that they are more real.

This guy was no different in seeking validation via TV. Only his methods were different. But as unusual as he was, he was not unique. Assuming (and I think it's a fair guess) that he was a paranoid schizophrenic, there are certainly other people like him around. And I think anyone already contemplating doing a school shooting (and since Columbine, there have always been people who do contemplate exactly that) might find the pot has been sweetened by seeing that they will get to appear on TV after death to present their own words. It's a kind of immortality.

In my opinion, even before the video, he was already being presented as some kind of anti-hero in the TV coverage. The video just made that even more so.

The materials (yep - they count as data, sorry if you don't like the word)

"Data" to me suggests pure information. But the videos and photos are more than that. They are a way for him to speak from beyond the grave. WHAT they say (the data they contain) is not really important. It's that they exist, and that they were broadcast, that matters.

Example: The Unibomber's "manifesto" contained data, in a way. But what it actually said was neither particularly coherent or important. What was important is that he managed to get major newspapers to print the whole thing.

the killer left behind are news, plain and simple, just like the massacre itself is news. There's a chance that both will inspire copycats, but both are news and should be reported. You have no evidence that one is more inspiring than the other.

I can see how people react in general to the chance to be on TV and get their 15 minutes of fame, how they will do things they would never do otherwise. Paranoid schizophrenics are not necessarily different in that respect.

And I think that if we didn't fixate on the story for so long, that would be more effective at reducing copycats than withholding actual news from the public.

I think the fixation and the length of the coverage is creepy, and I agree that it also encourages copycats. But I think the killer's video even more so, as I said above.

Also, I would rather spite the killer than reward him. He wanted to be on TV. I would talk a lot of satisfaction if the broadcasters said, "No. We won't give you what you wanted."

And of course violence works if what you want to do is cause destruction, achieve notoriety and become despised by society. That lesson is all over the place and you can't make it not true by papering over it. You don't convince people not to do violence if their goals are the natural consequences of violence. Your only chances are to convince them their goals are screwed up or physically prevent them from doing violence.

I think that's just capitulating. It's possible to consciously say, "I will not reward violence."

Every day parents and teachers make decisions to not reward bratty behavior. The kids being bratty want attention, and the parents and teachers, knowing that the attention reinforces the bratty behavior, can choose to ignore it.

This is the same thing on a much larger/worse scale. The killer knows that violence will get attention. The least we can do is try to resist giving him what he (and other people like him, who are absorbing the lessons) want.

[drmomentum[$]]

1) Kill myself
2) ???
3) Profit!!!!

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

[drmomentum[$]]

If someone blows me up, I refuse to capitulate by being blown up.

[hadassahchana[$]]

pippadaisy said

Please. I just submittedan article on the new story "breaking." They are blaming an alleged AUTISM diagnosis for what he did.

My panties are in a tight little wad today.

You do NOT want to know what I am saying right now. That is so f**ing irresponsible. Gee, I can hardly wait to blog about #3 ever again.

[hadassahchana[$]]

Prepoia said

What I found particularly interesting was that not one of my middle schoolers commented about the event. Although we were busy at school, not one of my 7th or 8th graders was appalled or frightened enough to mention it and wonder what I thought about it or that they were scared. Our poor young people cannot be traumatized anymore by horrific events

Oh, I think they can. #1 went to his first class of the day after the shootings. His prof decided to let the kids talk about it for a few minutes because he could tell they were still shaken up by it. And then, in order to break the mood a bit so that he could get on with the class, he told them that if a gunman walked into his class, he would be the first out the door so they should not expect him to be a hero. The class laughed- until one student totally lost it.

It turns out that this boy's boyfriend was one of those killed. Just two weeks before, he had come to Michigan to take his partner house-hunting since he'd gottten a job offer here. The poor boy was just beside himself, even after the prof came over and hugged him until he'd stopped crying.

#1 finished the class and then skipped the rest of them, came home, and spent the entire day playing with his little brothers.

[erik_kosberg]

It's Bill Clinton's fault.

[hadassahchana[$]]

Additionally, AFA is cashing in on the tragedy and selling the videos for $5 each.

Disgusting SOB's.

[drmomentum[$]]

Yeah, I saw Gingritch blame it on liberals this weekend. Can't wait for him to be president.

[brian_igo]

Guess what conservative talk show host and columnist thinks is just like the Virginia Tech massacre? Liberals who report what she says and the people who wanted Don Imus fired.

Media Matters was founded with the support and funding from key Democrat operatives, including John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. The group has documented ties to far-left organizations such as MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress -- both of which have been funded by far-left billionaire George Soros.

I have lived on the other side of the gun barrel pointed by Media Matters for America for the better part of three years, and I know what it feels like when a bunch of crackpots with keyboards pull the trigger, backed by millions upon millions of dollars in funding from George Soros.

I co-host "The Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show," a conservative news/talk program on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco, every weekday morning for four hours. Liberals are disgusted that our conservative program is one of the most-listened to radio programs in the notoriously liberal San Francisco Bay Area. We've endured several vicious campaigns waged against us by liberal activists with the backing of Media Matters for America, as they worked ruthlessly to have us silenced.

Several times these left-wing free speech Nazis have almost succeeded.

The transcripts and audio files of my comments have been excerpted, misrepresented and reconfigured to take statements out of context, reprinted with lies and distortions, and then disseminated to other liberal media outlets with fierce resolve.

The Democratic Party wants to silence us, and they use Media Matters of America to wage a war against us replete with character assassination, personal threats, lawsuits and efforts to have us fired or suspended.

I can live with being targeted by these "vile, despicable ankle-biters," as Bill O'Reilly calls Media Matters. In an odd way, the attacks against me have energized me to fight even harder for the conservative causes I believe in. One of those causes includes the right to bear arms, a right that had been denied to the students and professors at Virginia Tech University [sic] who were unable to defend themselves from a deranged murderer who took no notice of the school's status as a "Gun Free Zone."

But make no mistake -- the campaign by Media Matters of America [sic] against Don Imus is part of their way to send a message to conservatives on the airwaves and in print: "We're comin' to get you. We got Imus. And we'll get you, too." It is a chilling threat to our free speech rights in this country.

Now, with their current crusade in support of the gun control lobby, Media Matters is targeting our Second Amendment rights as well.

Like that mentally unbalanced and angry gunman at Virginia Tech, they'll methodically march through the domiciles of the conservative movement, targeting the movement's leaders for career elimination -- until and unless we stand up and fight back against their campaign of mayhem against conservative leaders and causes.

Being a bigot and an anti-semite on the public airwaves is just like sitting in a class at VT, having a gunman come through the door, and try to murder everyone in the room.

[realtraveller]

On a different note:

Regarding media bias.

The other night on ABC News there was a report on how Britain dealt with the school shootings at Dumblane Scotland a decade ago. The 'story line' was that after Dumblane, Britain virtually outlawed all guns. They had photos of the victims, the school, the little town, etc. etc. All very heart tugging stuff.

Buried, I mean buried, in a line of the script that was said virtually as a under the breath prefatory comment, was this line:

"While gun violence has actually gone up in Britain since the ban, there have been no school shootings since Dumblane".

If a viewer hadn't been listening carefully, the most critical piece of information, which was being comple