Why the media is responsible for the next rampage

Any good parent or teacher knows that when you have a kid who is acting out, throwing fits, making a scene, you just play into their hands if you give them too much attention. That's what they're after, your attention. By getting drawn into their world, you let the tantrum-thrower take control. I remember one parenting expert who advised the best way to deal with a kid throwing a fit is to simply walk out of the room and deny them your attention. In other words, you will not get what you want by engaging in this behavior.

So the Virginia Tech shooter, whose rampage is just another form of throwing an "I'm not getting my way" tantrum, is now trying to draw us unto his world and control us with his calculated acting out. The package of photos and videos that he sent to NBC are clear evidence of not just a twisted mind, but of his goal to perform the ultimate "look at me" act. Unfailingly, the media does exactly the wrong thing in almost all of these cases. By endlessly airing the photos and videos, by turning this nutjob into the anti-hero he longed to be, the wheels keep turning to crank out more and more of these fame seeking sociopaths. Isn't it obvious that this guy knew just what would happen with those images? That he would then become known, we would all look at him, know his name, hear his complaint? Are not all the media accomplices after the fact?

How is it that we have figured out that it's not right to keep the camera on people who run out onto the baseball field during a game, but we can't figure out that we should not aggrandize the whining grievances of crazy people with guns? We don't want to reward the drunken fence jumpers, but we give hours of airtime to the killers. Where is this story angle - the media's role in creating the next massacre - on Primetime, 48 Hours and all the rest? Don't hold your breath...

Comments

Anonymous said…
Right on, Barry. Very good point. To think that we've all heard the anchorman say "we're not going to show the _________ (fight, naked guy, etc.)", but we WILL show the murderer repeatedly. Similarly, I find it ironic that we will show the Iraq suicide bomber footage and our military losses, but the 9/11 footage is "too disturbing". If I was a conspiracy theorist I would say Big Brother is censoring and spinning and spoon-feeding (or force-feeding)us only the info they want us to see/hear. I don't like it one bit. Great minds think alike, Barry. Long live the free thinkers!
April 19, 2007 at 9:13 AM
DodgerScott said…
So, let's just assume you're an executive at NBC. You looked at your ratings for the last week. Dead last again. Your top show, "Deal or No Deal," is mediocre at best. Just then your phone rings. Apparently, there's a package downstairs from You Know Who. Your directive? Make sure you make a copy of everything before calling the FBI.
April 20, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How I have neglected my blog and the sadness that results

So jeez, I am feeling a little contrite because I have neglected this blog. Feeling a little like I have let an old friend fall by the wayside while I have been spending all my time with someone new.I even got needled by one of my (few) readers today - "Wow, no blog post since April 2!"  Feeling a little frivolous and superficial because my good old reliable Blogger blog here has fallen victim to my other time sucks - namely, Facebook, and of course, what I like to call "real life." Maintaining a blog is no simple task, my friend. Just mouse up there to the top of the screen, left of center, and start clicking on "Next blog." You will soon soon discover there are lots and lots people who start a blog, make two or three posts, and discover it's kind of demanding. (You'll also discover that about two-thirds of all the random blogs you'll see in the "next blog" mode are in Spanish, which I find strangely fascinating. ) Maybe those whose ...
Read more

"Mikey Angels" flies off in both directions at once

Image
The expression we've all heard is "you can't be too rich or too thin." I suppose that gets said a lot around the tennis court at the country club, the changing room at Sak's? I suppose it draws a wry smile every time. Or is it really said in the aisles at Target by people who are at no risk of being too much of either? The expression we've never heard is "you can't be too smart," because we all know it is possible to be too smart. Kind of ironic since we spend a lot of energy trying to force kids to be smart. We pound them with homework, make them take tests, tell them the kids in Mumbai are going to take your future job. We try to get them into the best schools, the ones for the smart people, but they are always at risk of becoming "too smart for their own good." Based on what I've heard about last weekend's Presidential candidate activity, Obama is running the risk of being too smart for his own good. He and McCain did these l...
Read more

Burgers with daddy

Image
Sometimes on Sundays I am transported to a place that was called Gene and Darlene's. (OK, that sounded kind of Shirley MacLaine. I am not talking about out of body experiences here. It's a memory, ok?) Gene and Darlene's was a bar down on Shoal Creek south of Joplin. The building still stands (photo proof here, taken August 2008.) No telling how many other names the place has had since it was Gene and Darlene's, but that's the name it has in my mind. On Sundays sometimes, when I was a kid, daddy would come up with the notion that burgers from Gene and Darlene's would really hit the spot. Being always in favor of food in general, and carry-out food being really exotic to me, the idea was always a winner in my opinion. I would be eager to climb into the car with daddy and ride along. It was a short trip down to Redings Mill, around the infamous curve that topped a bluff over the creek, where all kinds of carloads of people had suffered hideous deaths in spectacula...
Read more