CT School Shooting and the media

[maccards44]

I somewhat hijacked the CT school shooting thread with a discussion of the role of media in yesterday's coverage. I feel terrible about that and wanted to continue the talk in a new format. I thought this article was interesting and a good place to start:

Like many fast-moving news events of the past, the mass shooting in Connecticut on Friday proved that speed can be the enemy of accuracy when it comes to news reporting...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,1692369.story

[Wickabee]

The media is a huge problem. Their knee-jerk reporting and need to be first with the story is a huge detriment to society. They misreport facts and put other people in danger. They cause confusion and get in the way.

But is that their fault?

Ostensibly, yes. They are, after all, the ones doing the reporting. But what do they get out of it?
Ratings. Whoever is first to break a story can brag about it and be "Your first source for breaking news!". Ratings = advertising dollars and that's why they're there. To raise money for the network. That's why the show exists, to sell the ad space.

The problem is us, the people. We as a group demand this and reward whoever is first by watching them. We demand to know who did it, but don't want to know who died out of respect. Excuse me, but shouldn't we be remembering the deceased out of respect and forgetting the killer out of disgust. We drive the car. We run the machine. We pay the price.

[maccards44]

The media is a huge problem. Their knee-jerk reporting and need to be first with the story is a huge detriment to society.

I don't see it that way, at least not the huge detriment level. To me, the trade off with the incredibly fast sources of information we have today is that all the information doesn't get the level of checks it once did. 100 years ago we would have read about this in a newspaper in a few days. Zero urgency but more correct information. Now, we have it pretty much instantly on a screen, and it might not be right. One thing is for sure, we aren't going backward on the technology front. I'd suggest people take the first reports of stories like this as almost rough draft and accept that the first thing you see won't be all the facts. This actually started as a report of a teacher shot in the foot, then 1 or maybe 2 people shot, then...you know the rest. So, in a way, it was always evolving.

The whole wrong gunman reported is really a mess. The police said, "the gunman is inside, he is dead, his name is Ryan Lanza." and the media repeated that. Obviously, the name was wrong, but the info about the shooter is incredibly important to get out there. The public should KNOW the gunman is dead and the public is no longer in danger. That's a basic media responsibilty. The fact that the name was screwed up is on the police and it's understandable b/c he had his brothers ID on him.

Does the media fill ANY positive role in your mind?
Did it used to do that role better than now?

[Wickabee]

Does the media fill a role now? Yes. It fills the same role it always happens.
Is it worse than it used to be? Absolutely. The identity of the gunman only need be reported immediately if he is still a threat, ie: Not dead. If he's dead, let it sit a minute. In this case that misreport is on the police., but it's not always on the police and it happens often. Which shooting was it where they reported some Tea Party member as the shooter when he was at home, unaware? As soon as the identity is revealed his life story suddenly becomes fodder for every reporter, anchor, pundit and bumpkin with a willingness to go on camera. Then they show the crying families and say, "Aww, that's sad," and then go back to making the killer more and more famous. If he dies on the scene, make it a,"His name was whatever. He is dead. We are looking for a motive," and be done. The kind of coverage they give is what makes this and Columbine seem like a good idea. If you're gonna go down, take a whole lot of people with you. If you can, aim for a "Top 5" body count. You'll be dead either way, but this.way, you're remembered.

Meanwhile they release the names of victims but tell the media to respect the privacy of the families. I'm not saying that isn't noble, it is. What I am pointing out is that, through the media, we are making sure the killers are remembered and the victims are forgotten. These people are becoming heroes to all the freaks and monsters who just haven't had the balls to do anything yet.

[maccards44]

What I am pointing out is that, through the media, we are making sure the killers are remembered and the victims are forgotten. These people are becoming heroes to all the freaks and monsters who just haven't had the balls to do anything yet.

I think you are right and I think enough people agree with you that you might see this play out differently. I think this time is so bad, so many kids, so young, that viewers/readers/posters will say 'enough is enough on the shooter' and the media might respond by doing less on him. Feedback (like yours) on social media plays a larger role than ever before. On the flip side of course is the obvious "How could a person do this" question that everyone is asking and everyone wants answered. The search for a motive is at the top of everyone's mind.

[Wickabee]

Everyone wants the motive, for sure. Even I'm curious a little curious. At the same time, though, I don't care. What am I going to find out? He hated his mom because she let an "uncle" touch him as a kid and then he decided killing children would put them out of the misery he associated with childhood. Okay, but so what. All that happens when we get the motive or reason, is that his actions are validated. It means if someone wants to die, but wants to say something first, go do this. Your life will be scrutinized. Everything you've ever written down will be read on international TV. They will see that your cause was just (and if they don't, who cares, you're dead). You will be a celebrity.

Basically when I think of the idea that this was exactly what he wanted, mentally I'll or not, my curiosity dissolves completely. I prefer to wonder what was lost. Any one of these kids was a potential game changer. Was one of them going to be a doctor? President? How many of tomorrow's loving families were lost?

That's what I prefer to wonder about. It's a lot more difficult because I can't default to anger as when thinking about the killer. It's nothing but sadness, but it's more worthwhile.

[Zimbow]

Anyone see this?

NEWTOWN, Conn.--St. Rose of Lima Roman Catholic Church was evacuated during its noon mass due to an anonymous threat made by phone.
A spokesman for the church told Yahoo News that an unidentified male called the rectory, threatening that he would "kill everyone."
"My friend didn't finish the job," the caller said, according to the church official.
The church alerted state police, who said it was a credible enough threat and ordered the church be evacuated, the spokesman said. At approximately 12:30 p.m., Monsignor Robert Weiss interrupted a younger priest, "calmly told the parishoners there was a threat," and led the evacuation of approximately 500 people, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...182416799.html

[Wickabee]

Unfortunately, these things are common. Quite frankly, I think if these guys are willing to make these threats at this time, they're willing to take the punishment the killer should have received.

[duane1969]

The media is a huge problem. Their knee-jerk reporting and need to be first with the story is a huge detriment to society. They misreport facts and put other people in danger. They cause confusion and get in the way.

But is that their fault?

Ostensibly, yes. They are, after all, the ones doing the reporting. But what do they get out of it?
Ratings. Whoever is first to break a story can brag about it and be "Your first source for breaking news!". Ratings = advertising dollars and that's why they're there. To raise money for the network. That's why the show exists, to sell the ad space.

The problem is us, the people. We as a group demand this and reward whoever is first by watching them. We demand to know who did it, but don't want to know who died out of respect. Excuse me, but shouldn't we be remembering the deceased out of respect and forgetting the killer out of disgust. We drive the car. We run the machine. We pay the price.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Just look at how much misinformation has come out about this...

- Lanza's mom worked at the school - Lanza's mom was a sub teacher at the school - Lanza's mom did not work at the school
- A Bushmaster rifle and two handguns were used in the killings - The Bushmaster style rifle was left in the car and he only used handguns - All victims were shot with the rifle
- Lanza had no mental disorders - Lanza had a personality disorder, but no other issues - Lanza had Asperger's and had an anti-social disorder
- Lanza was a normal everyday kind of guy - Lanza was a goth loner, but smart and a good person - Lanza would cringe with fear and cower against the wall if anyone approached him and often had to have his mother come to his school to calm him after he had a breakdown

These are variations that I have seen just in reading a few articles on the web. I can only imagine how many other angles and how much incorrect information has been told by "breaking news" reporters.

[Wickabee]

We know were the problem, but we still point to other causes. This is society's fault.