Today we discussed how the media tends to distort and exaggerate events and help create the "mood" of a nation. As we know, the media often manufactures drama as much as it reports it. As people read about negative events in the newspapers, their own mood is adversely affected, which then also is reported in the newspapers, which is then read again by other people, and so on... A feedback loop is created by the media and the public, in which the media continually reads, amplifies, and reflects back the feelings of the public.
Occasionally the media helps report a truly tragic event. The one that comes to my mind is the shootings at Columbine, especially since its 10th anniversary occurred recently. This was one of the first events in which the media provided ongoing coverage during the event itself, and later dug deep into the lives of the two killers, attempting to find an explanation. Although some felt that the media was providing a service by trying to find reason within this chaos, others felt that the media was only glorifying and exaggerating the event, exploiting it for readers. After all, the killers had wanted undying infamy for committing their actions, and the media gave it to them.
When tragic events such as Columbine occur, should the media give such intense coverage to the event and gratify the fame-hungry killers who perpetrated it? What do you think?
-Eric W
13 comments:
I don't think we have the right to call the killers "fame-hungry." Some are honestly just sick, and some, well...who knows what goes on in their heads. (I don't think I actually want to know.) But when the media exaggerates things and gives them more interest than they deserve (like in the Columbine investigation), I'd rather learn these things for myself. But how? It seems almost impossible. Let's face it: We wouldn't all be interviewing the murderers to get a good grip on their situations, would be? We only have the media for the relaying of this information. Who else would keep us up to date on the happenings of today, both happy and depressing.
After Moorestown was voted the number one place to live in America, we found pride in being such a "clean" town in such close proximity to a place like Camden. (I italicize the word to emphasize that even the intonation of our voices changed when we mentioned the name.) We do indeed enjoy hearing bad news about places/things/people that don't have to do with us directly. We want to be the best, especially in a society like ours.
Just a side note: During a discussion a few days ago, my friend and I decided that we do EVERYTHING in self-interest and only by chance do we benefit others, making ourselves look like heroes. When we volunteer in urban areas, or areas less fortunate than ours, are we doing this to make ourselves look better, or to truly help?
(Sam Maliha)
I agree with Sam in regards of killers just in it for the fame. Honestly, I think that the desire for fame takes a back seat to whatever negative emotions that these killers feel (whatever they may be). I also see Sam's point about relying on the media. We really don't have any other way to learn about what things that are happening in the world that are impossible for us to witness. However, just because we have to rely on it doesn't make the media any more bias or slanted than it is.
"We do indeed enjoy hearing bad news about places/things/people that don't have to do with us directly. We want to be the best, especially in a society like ours."
I don't think that we want to hear all of these bad things happening in other places because we 'want to be the best.' All these stories about these tragic events are just what they are- stories. They are meant to be interesting and attract our attention. After all, those things don't happen in our everyday lives. So of course we're going to be interested in something interesting and new. We get the thrill of experiencing the situation, in a sense, while having the satisfaction that it didn't happen to us.
In terms of volunteering in less fortunate areas, I think that it really depends on the person. Some people are genuine while doing community service while others are really into it for the hours and something to put on college applications. However, even if it is all self interest, does it matter? In the end, someone benefits from such acts, selfish or not.
I think one reason that the media gives as much coverage to murder type incidents is because everyone always wants to know why. The common person couldn't bring themselves to take the life of another. So we enjoy the pyschoanalyzation that the media can sometimes provide. Or the news will just give you the facts and you can think it through for yourself. My term paper is on Charles Starkweather, a serial killer from the 1950's, and Steven King kept a scrapbook of the newspaper articles about Starkweather because he wanted to know that if he every saw someone like that he would now to get as far away as possible. I think it makes us feel better to understand the situations that the murders and crimes happen during so they we know what to avoid. Coverage of crimes ultimately gives us a sense of security, no?
Sorry that comment was left by Kelley Volosin
Sam, I still feel that one reason the killers committed their horrible massacre was to satisfy their egos, to show the world how "special" they were. Here's a quote from Eric Harris, one of the killers: "Directors will be fighting over this story. We're going to kick-start a revolution." Not only did Harris and Klebold make videos that they sent out to news outlets before their act to publicize themselves, but they also discussed which film director would be most likely to create a movie of their life. Quentin Tarantino and Spielberg were two names they mentioned. I feel that it can be assumed that Harris and Klebold certainly were aiming for infamy when they planned out their killings.
-Eric W
But Eric Harris can't be so naive as to think that he's going to be able to enjoy this fame, can he? If he calculated his attacks and thought the process through, he couldn't have possibly thought that he would get away with blood on his hands, did he? Even if Quenrin, Tarantino, and Spielberg created some sort of entertainment success out of the phenomenon, the killers would be in a jail cell, unconnected from any sort of "fan-base" (if such a sickening thing could ever exist).
Maybe the killers were looking for revenge, some sort of public display of their hatred, but I would absolutely hesitate to call it their need for "fame." Columbine is the farthest thing from Hollywood...at least let's hope so.
(Sam Maliha)
Hmmm.. I'm starting to see what Eric means. It's not so much for the fame that we usually think of. They aren't looking so much for fans, but rather just some place in history. It reminds me of Dane Cook said in one of his comedy acts: we all want to leave a legacy. I think that this is the case with some of these criminals (but I still stand behind the fact that most of these criminals have emotional or mental reasons for killing people). They want to make the history books, and a quick and easy way of doing it is to kill off a bunch of people. How long they stay in those history books is unknown, but they seem to care about just getting in them.
Thank you Mary. That's exactly what I mean. :)
But...what about the people who are just filled with hatred and blinded by severe feelings? I doubt they aspire to have their name in a text book. Now, I'm not saying that this hasn't happened, because it most likely has! But still, I think that making a generalization and saying that the killers yearn for a "legacy" is both skewed and frightening. But mostly frightening.
Has desire for recognition driven us to murder? I really still can't agree, although I do understand your stance.
(Sam Maliha)
"Has desire for recognition driven us to murder?"
Some people will do anything for this recognition. Look at all those youtube videos where people do all these stupid (yet funny to us) things. Some people will even go as far as to hurt themselves in order to get noticed and receive the recognition that they want. I wouldn't put it past murderers to do the same. So in a sense, you're right, Sam. They are blinded by these feelings of wanting to be remembered for something.
Also, in response to Kelley's comment, I think that we are given a sense of security, but at the same time, a sense of insecurity or even paranoia. Although the stories that we hear about occur somewhere else, somewhere in our minds, we are thinking how it could happen to us. We start worrying about our own future and the possibility of being in a similar situation. After all, human nature does tend to assume the worst.
I don't think that we can legitimately choose between Sam's idea and Eric's. As we have been discussing in class regarding the authors whose works we have read, we can ask what the point of his/her work is, but we cannot answer the question with definitiveness because we can't get into the mind of the author. We can come up with ideas and discuss them. So, in this sense I think that both ideas are valid ones, and one or the other or a combination could be correct. In the end, though, I think that whatever the ultimate reason was for Columbine, mentally sick minds were involved. Whether this sickness was derived from desire to go down in history or whether it was derived from hatred or emotional pain we can guess but will probably never know for sure.
Emily T.
But doesn't the sense of security stem from the fact that we don't think we could encounter these crimes? When we actually feel threatened, we take a different approach. Take September 11th, for example. We took direct action; we didn't sit around waiting to hear more...we took a stance because we were all affected. For killings in urban areas, we watch the reports as if they were stories/entertainment. I hope I got my point across..
(Sam Maliha)
Sam, I do agree with you that often such cases in urban areas are reported to us as sources of "entertainment." However, it is important to note that September 11 was an entirely different situation than the Columbine incident because it involved a much more serious and developed plot of terrorism which threatened NATIONAL security rather than a single local city. In terms of your first question about a sense of security, the resulting sense, whether it be security or insecurity, depends on the individual's personal feelings because some people just naturally tend to be more paranoid than do others.
On another note, while we are on the topic of the Columbine shootings, I wish to pose a question which I've often pondered: Was the young man who murdered at Virginia Tech directly "inspired" by the Columbine shooters, or did he simply happen to feel the same way they did when they went on their rampage (emotionally burdened)? I get the feeling that the media might already have answered this question, but I can't seem to remember what was argued. Thoughts?
(Janet Lee)
Post a Comment