The Media and Massacres

[Conan71]

I took the day off yesterday and from the first news of the shootings at Va. Tech. there was nothing else news-worthy during the day.

This will blanket the airwaves for the next couple of weeks.  Mis-informed talking heads will talk about gun control and interview a bunch of former FBI profilers and ATF agents and really try to dig into the psyche of the shooter.

My personal opinion is that the massive media coverage on ten different news networks only glorifies hideous acts like this in the minds of other would-be nut-jobs.

How does everyone else feel about the media feeding frenzy on other's misery?

[cannon_fodder]

Too many people fawn over the continuous 'news' that is out there.  The same crap recycled over and over again is not news.  What Brittany Spears had to drink last night at Club X is not news.  They are 24h entertainment channels first and news sources second.

You are absolutely correct, yesterday they had about a paragraph of real information along with a paragraph of additional facts about VT and the history of school shootings.  They turned that into hours of coverage.   However, that is what the people demanded.  I can't blame the networks.

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

Anyway, the international reaction is much more interesting than our own.  I always enjoy trying to look at events from other's persepctive:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,477686,00.html
http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/main.asp

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Anyway, the international reaction is much more interesting than our own.

I agree that the news coverage in other countries is much better than here.  Most of our stories originate from the AP--we need alternative sources of information.  Generally, the news stories in other countries are far more analytical than here, where most people are satisfied with only the basic information.  There is just something lacking in our news--it's all U.S. or U.S.-interest-based (there's rarely anything international that makes our headlines that doesn't have some kind of monetary or political interest involved).

London Times:

quote:
"Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"

Corriere della Sera:

quote:
"The latest attack on a U.S. campus will shake up America, maybe it will provoke more vigorous reactions than in the past, but it won't change the culture of a country that has the notion of self-defense imprinted on its DNA and which considers the right of having guns inalienable."

Compare those to this:
Yahoo! News

quote:
Police identified the gunman in the classroom attack as 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui (pronounced Choh Suhng-whee). Cho held a green card — meaning he was a legal, permanent U.S. resident — and had been in the United States since 1992, federal officials said. Officials said he graduated from a public high school in Chantilly, Va., in 2003.

His family lives in Centreville, Va., a Washington suburb, but he was living on campus, in a different dorm from the one where the bloodbath began, the university said.

[iplaw]

Yeah, the US news source offered facts about the situation, A.K.A. journalism.  What was offered in the European press is what we collectively refer to as editorialism.  Editorials don't provide fact, they provide opinion.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Yeah, the US news source offered facts about the situation, A.K.A. journalism.  What was offered in the European press is what we collectively refer to as editorialism.  Editorials don't provide fact, they provide opinion.

Journalism is supposed to provide the facts, yes, but also provide some kind of insight as well.  American journalism has changed into a "quick run-down only" format and doesn't look any deeper than a person's age, where they went to school and where their parents are from.

Oh wait, in one article, a student said the shooter was a loner.  I guess that's about as deep as American media will go.

Here's an example from cannon_fodder's above post that illustrates how fact and some analysis or other look can be combined:

quote:British daily The Independent writes:

"The passionate feelings of the gun lobby may be traced to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, enshrining 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. Although the provision stems from the times when 'well regulated militias' were deemed necessary to protect against a British attempt to regain the lost colonies, it is the default position of any argument against greater gun control here."

"As such, it has trumped every other consideration, not least the fact that on any given day about 80 people are killed by firearms, the vast majority by murder or suicide. Gun violence may cost $2.3 billion each year in medical expenses, but it is a price, gun supporters believe, that is worth paying to protect a fundamental freedom ..."

[iplaw]

quote:
Journalism is supposed to provide the facts, yes, but also provide some kind of insight as well.  

No it's not.  Journalism is the conferring of events or stories in a factual manner.

quote:
American journalism has changed into a "quick run-down only" format and doesn't look any deeper than a person's age, where they went to school and where their parents are from.

Oh wait, in one article, a student said the shooter was a loner.  I guess that's about as deep as American media will go.

Sometimes facts are boring and incosequential, but anything past cold, hard facts is outside the scope of journalism and comprises opinion.  That's why there is an editorial page in the paper, and why there is a separate defintion for "opinion journalism" that differs from journalism.  I personally want as little of the writer's bias to show through as possible.



Both of those european papers in addition to being incredibly incorrect, are editorialized stories.

[iplaw]

quote:
Here's an example from cannon_fodder's above post that illustrates how fact and some analysis or other look can be combined:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British daily The Independent writes:

"The passionate feelings of the gun lobby may be traced to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, enshrining 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. Although the provision stems from the times when 'well regulated militias' were deemed necessary to protect against a British attempt to regain the lost colonies, it is the default position of any argument against greater gun control here."

"As such, it has trumped every other consideration, not least the fact that on any given day about 80 people are killed by firearms, the vast majority by murder or suicide. Gun violence may cost $2.3 billion each year in medical expenses, but it is a price, gun supporters believe, that is worth paying to protect a fundamental freedom ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And while they are interesting takes on the story, they neither convey, nor report the who, what, when, where or why of the story.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by DScott28604

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Anyway, the international reaction is much more interesting than our own.

I agree that the news coverage in other countries is much better than here.  Most of our stories originate from the AP--we need alternative sources of information.  Generally, the news stories in other countries are far more analytical than here, where most people are satisfied with only the basic information.  There is just something lacking in our news--it's all U.S. or U.S.-interest-based (there's rarely anything international that makes our headlines that doesn't have some kind of monetary or political interest involved).

London Times:

quote:
"Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"

Corriere della Sera:

quote:
"The latest attack on a U.S. campus will shake up America, maybe it will provoke more vigorous reactions than in the past, but it won't change the culture of a country that has the notion of self-defense imprinted on its DNA and which considers the right of having guns inalienable."

Compare those to this:
Yahoo! News

quote:
Police identified the gunman in the classroom attack as 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui (pronounced Choh Suhng-whee). Cho held a green card — meaning he was a legal, permanent U.S. resident — and had been in the United States since 1992, federal officials said. Officials said he graduated from a public high school in Chantilly, Va., in 2003.

His family lives in Centreville, Va., a Washington suburb, but he was living on campus, in a different dorm from the one where the bloodbath began, the university said.

I'm a liberal for the most part, generally anti-gun, and even I can see that the European stories had little in the way of fact.  They read like a typical editorial to me.  I much prefer the Yahoo story.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
And while they are interesting takes on the story, they are neither convey, nor report the who, what, when, where or why of the story.

There's only so much of the who, what, when and where of a story that I can listen to repeatedly.  After it's printed in an article (those I posted are only excerpts), I doubt it's necessary to beat it into our heads that who? Cho Seung-Hui; what? Shooting; when? April 16 and where? Virginia Tech.  After that comes the why, right?  Well, nobody knows why yet.

If you can present a story with that information and include relevant issues such as gun control legislation or the history of the underlying American culture of violence, it's still journalism.

From our friend, Wiki:
"Journalism's main activities include stating who, what, when, where, why and how, and stating the significance and effects of certain events or trends."

I just think that for the most part, big American journalism is caught up in too much hype and isn't as interesting as indies or international sources.  That's all.

[cannon_fodder]

I enjoy the American media for its fact giving and its attempt at separating editorials from fact.  I like it when media provides some background or substantive reporting along with the basic facts, but do not welcome the journalists opinions on the Second Amendment nor American culture in a 'news' story.  I would be happy to hear it opined elsewhere in the paper, but mingling the two is what I do as an attorney to persuade people.  Which is not the job of the media.

I enjoy the foreign press as it provides different facts as well as an outside perspective.  They are not nearly as careful when checking facts, but sometimes that allows them to get stories out that are quelled by fuzzy facts in the US.  You have to be able to take the 'facts' from Italy, for example, similar to a "I heard."

However, the opinion provided in these papers at least shows what large segments of other populations feel about the US and events.  It gives a general segmented view of their take.  Which, after learning the facts as best as possible, is greatly interesting and informative.

[iplaw]

quote:
There's only so much of the who, what, when and where of a story that I can listen to repeatedly.  After it's printed in an article (those I posted are only excerpts), I doubt it's necessary to beat it into our heads that who? Cho Seung-Hui; what? Shooting; when? April 16 and where? Virginia Tech.  After that comes the why, right?  Well, nobody knows why yet.

Hence our obsession with the 24h news cycle.  There is very little substance to the story other than the facts.  What spin you want to put on that is not reportage.

quote:
If you can present a story with that information and include relevant issues such as gun control legislation or the history of the underlying American culture of violence, it's still journalism.

Facts + opinion != journalism.

quote:
From our friend, Wiki:
"Journalism's main activities include stating who, what, when, where, why and how, and stating the significance and effects of certain events or trends."

Wiki is not a reputable source.  For all you know I could have drafted that wiki.

[NellieBly]

I can't believe I am actually agreeing with ip on anything. Editorials fall under journalism, but basic news stories should not include editorializing. That's why papers and news programs list editorials or opinions as such.
I wish people would quit turning to Wikipedia for facts.
Who What When Where Why -- Just the facts ma'am.

[Conan71]

What I find annoying is the talking heads going on and on with their commentary and half-information whilst the same two minute video track plays in the background for an hour.

At least this zeros out Imus and Anna Nicole.

Where's the conspiracy nut-jobs to say Karl Rove set this shooting up as a diversion from the war? [B)]

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

Editorials fall under journalism, but basic news stories should not include editorializing.

Which you can see on Fox News every time ya click it on. I mean, from "Fox and Friends" to "Special Report with Brit Hume" just alot of editorializing. Except for Shepard Smith-he actually makes the news fun for me in some way.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I took the day off yesterday and from the first news of the shootings at Va. Tech. there was nothing else news-worthy during the day.

This will blanket the airwaves for the next couple of weeks.  Mis-informed talking heads will talk about gun control and interview a bunch of former FBI profilers and ATF agents and really try to dig into the psyche of the shooter.

My personal opinion is that the massive media coverage on ten different news networks only glorifies hideous acts like this in the minds of other would-be nut-jobs.

How does everyone else feel about the media feeding frenzy on other's misery?

I agree.The media should have the integrity to not glorify the monsters who send in tapes for them show.The only reason why these monsters send these tapes to media outlets is for the media outlets to show to everyone these tapes.These monsters send in tapes for various reasons like enemy/terrorist propaganda or some nutjob trying to get his 15 minutes of fame.These monsters do not send these tapes in to get pointers in journalism from the pros,nor are they entering a amature journalism contest that only psychos and terrorist know about.These media outlet owners are scum for airing these tapes.