Should the media change the way it covers mass tragedies because of how frequently these events have started to occur?
As far as I know, there's no preceded recorded tragedy in American history like what happened at Columbine High School in 1999. But regretfully, after the Columbine shooting so many more of these mass tragedies started to occur: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va., Fort Hood, outside Killeen, Tx., Casas Adobes, Az. and now Century 16 in Aurora, Colo.
Yesterday, I watched part of a round table discussion NBC News' The Cycle where journalist Toure said this:
"Psychologists say that there's a deep-seeded long festering rage that stems from feeling marginalized and feeling powerless; that leads to wanting to do something to get back at the world."
"Also sobering is the way we in the news media may be feeding these people's last wish. They want recognition, they want infamy, the want power after what they feel is a tiny insignificant marginalized, misunderstood life. What happens after they shoot up the school or the multiplex, every news network rips up its plans and sends reporters to the scene and does days of non-stop coverage."
(see the full clip here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/#48263305)
I agree.
This is not to say that we should not have strict gun laws and work tirelessly on figuring out a profile for these kinds of people, but is the endless media attention giving the killer what he wanted? James Holmes' name will go down in history in a wretchedly infamous way, as the "Batman Killer". According to CNN, the shooter "entered the sold-out movie theater dressed in black, wearing a ballistic helmet, a tactical ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, protectors over his throat and his groin, a gas mask and black tactical gloves was wearing full body armor." Police also said that Holmes had colored his hair red and told police that he was "the Joker". The Joker's character didn't fear years in prison or death, but the character was a sociopath who wanted to be infamous for his crimes.
Was Holmes playing a character?
How can we report stories without giving these murders what they want? Just by doing their job, the police learn everything about the suspect and the media has a duty to give this information to the public. I've seen less coverage of the suspect and more coverage of the victim, which may be a solution.
Unfortunately, in 1999, America had to learn how to prepare for mass public murders when Columbine happened. This was a person tragedy for me because I'm from Colorado. And, I grew up in Aurora, Colo.
The Columbine shootings occurred when I was headed to college, but I remember one of the photos in Time magazine showed a picture of teenage girl running out of the building, crying. I recognized her instantly. We took ballet classes together, in fact, she was one of my good friends in class. We stood next to each other at the barre, and always joked and laughed. A few months later, I came home from college and went to the mall to finish up some Christmas shopping and I saw her. She was working at one of the kiosks. I could tell that she recognized me as well, but her demeanor was so different from what I knew of her. It was like, she didn't want me to approach her.
This kinda of trauma changes each person who goes through such tragedy in many different ways but, it does beg questions to be answered about the gun laws here in the US.
Is it reasonable for private citizens to carry automatic weapons. Because the only instance when those weapons are "needed" are when an actor plays a character in a movie - in war too, but is war always necessary? - and the setup is a character seeking something from the world that he/she wasn't given.
What do you think?
