The massacre at Virginia Tech was a tragedy and it was undeniably newsworthy. But was it worth the orgasmic news media frenzy? No. It should've been front-page stuff for several days in Virginia and for only one day for the rest of America.
The question is: what benefit, what single benefit, does this media frenzy provide?
Nothing. Not a thing.
Lionel Shriver in the Washington Post writes,
Even more than these gruesomely gratuitous incidents themselves, I have come to dread the campus shooting's ritual media aftermath -- a secondary wave of atrocity, all conducted under the guise of grief, soul-searching concern and an ostensible determination to ensure that no demented loner ever opens fire on his classmates again. Yet the bloated photographs on front pages, the repeating loops of interviews on cable news, the postings of warped creative writing assignments on the Web, and perhaps above all the airing of Cho's self-pitying, quasi-messianic video clips on every network all help ensure that similar incidents will indeed recur -- and soon.
The news frenzy (
not the tragedy) does reveal a few issues that, in a catch-22, wouldn't really exist unless news frenzies existed.
One ill effect of the news media is its insta-trial mode. Before the killer's identity was even known or the facts about what happened gathered, the media were putting everything from the university's president to the police response on trial and handing them verdicts of guilt for not preventing it.
"Why-o-why did this massacre happen and who can we blame?"When it quickly turned out the tragedy happened at the hand of a single psycho and his name revealed, the media did an effortless sidestep and started blaming every teacher, counselor, and roommate the psycho ever came in contact with.
"Why-o-why didn't you see the signs?"In pure Dr. Phil idiocy (
just how many news shows sought out that guy's 'expertise' on the matter??) the media continues to pour over the tragedy and give their silly thoughts on who's picture to put up on the Blame Board.
The wild blaming has even resulted
a petition in support of VT's president and the local police chief:
We feel that these individuals and groups, especially Dr. Steger and Chief Flinchum, have borne the brunt of unwarranted criticism by members of the media.
And when they can't blame anyone in the present (
he killed himself), they look to the past to ask who dropped the ball.
Are there definite things that can be measured to
'pre-cog' someone so they can be locked up before a crime? Of course not!
Stephen King writes:
Certainly in this sensitized day and age, my own college writing — including a short story called ''Cain Rose Up'' and the novel RAGE — would have raised red flags, and I'm certain someone would have tabbed me as mentally ill because of them...
and
Essentially there's no story here, except for a paranoid a--hole who went DEFCON-1.
The VT killer was just that, nothing more.
There are
no 'tests' to weed people out who are about to pop. What do they want, a national "potential violent mass murder" watch list? How many criteria, two or three, would it take to have everyone in the entire nation on such a list?
Another psycho-babble issue that this tragedy raises is that of the Healing Grinder.
That evening following the tragedy people were already talking about "starting the healing process".
The healing process. WTF
is that? Is it patented?
Is the healing process now a national requirement one must embark on exactly 2.3 hours after being within 500 yards of any tragedy, plus it also has to be completed in three business days to receive an official Certificate of
All Healed?
As one VT staff being interviewed on the radio yesterday said, "Virgina Tech is mourning. We aren't ready to
heal yet. I wish everyone would shut up about
healing! We're going to mourn, and we're going to mourn a good long time! We'll
heal, whatever that means, when we're good and ready!"
God bless that lady!
But not only do they want the people at VT to
heal, they also want all of America's children to
heal because they've
somehow been traumatized by the news coverage and it all "needs to be explained" to them "so they can understand".
Sure, I'll answer any questions my kids have about it. I've had the news on a few times when they've been in the room (ages 4, 8, and 16).
They haven't asked a thing.
I guess they're keeping their 'trauma' to themselves and I'm a bad parent for not bringing it up and exploring it.
Or, maybe I give them a better message when, in the middle of a news media frenzy, I nonchalantly turn the TV off.
Now here it is, your url of the day:
http://particleadventure.org/