re: #190 ElCapitanAmerica

I wasn’t here in the Czech Republic for the Colombine massacre. I can very well imagine the tabloid media is much worse in other countries…..here it’s mostly boobs and who’s screwing around on who and which politician is taking bribes.

But to Mr. Ebert’s point, there is an argument to be made that wall-to-wall media coverage, with dramatic theme music and breathless reporting of irrelevant details (they have to fill that 24 hours with something) may well get some lonely 16 year old in Topeka thinking, “Wow…that lucky sumbitch! Everyone knows who he is and everyone’s talking about him. I wish people would do that with me.” So maybe he tweets or posts, “Well, I’m not takin this crap anymore!” and then it’s a case of see you at the next massacre.

Excessive coverage of such events may plant the seed of an idea in a highly disturbed, alienated and socially isolated individual. I understand that excessive coverage and oversaturation is the name of the game. It bleeds, it leads, as the old saying goes.

And if that highly disturbed, alienated and socially isolated individual has access to a handful of firearms, or even just a couple, well…..that’s when trouble starts. But Mr. Ebert made, in my view, a good point about the media inadvertently glorifying such individuals in the name of explaining their actions.

Face it…..Charles Whitman, Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, those are names that folks remember. Scientific papers get written about them. They become the stuff of legend, albeit, infamous legend. But people remember who they were, and the murderous impact they had. And for some people, that may act as impetus.