Do we give too much media hype in the news to killers?

1. 79

   Me, Steve Waltersposted 13 years ago

   Just a thought...

   replyreport
   1. 60

      hillriderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      why not give it more "thought" and share what you think as well ? lol

      replyreport
2. 60

   hillriderposted 13 years ago

   There is a reason in my opinion that this is receiving the hype that it is and that's the current trend of the media and government to hype the need for more security and more pay for the same. So long as you can scare people into believing they will be the next victim they are more likely to cooperate when voting for additional revenue or to approve additional congressional spending for more. Positive for those who need those votes to spur legislation. Just be happy the shooter wasn't a Latino or reforms for fencing in Mexico itself would be the next proposal from Arizona.
   I don't wish to downplay the seriousness of the murders or to minimize the grief of the victim's and their families. I just see the trend and pointed it out. Mark my words...
   
   BTW- there is a movie out, low budget script and plot with numerous good actors in it called Machete. It has a plot similar to what I am describing. The senator is shot to get him elected, his platform is anti-immigration, and he is shot by a Latino. Different ending for Hollywood but the fence mentioned is there too...

   replyreport
3. 79

   Me, Steve Waltersposted 13 years ago

   I think we do. It is a slippery slope. People want to be informed. But in a big way...the person who commits a horrible crime can have their agenda broadcast internationally...in a matter of minutes...and for many months afterwards...and years.
   
   Thanks for your response on this one...hillrider

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's not such a bad thing that some agendas get broadcast.  It is said that daylight is the best disinfectant for a lot of things.  You see it on here (the forums) - people with really destructive, hateful, "agendas", taking advantage of the opportunity to spew their hateful ideas.  They put their craziness on display for all the world to see, and suddenly someone people once thought might be "sort of normal" is seen for the hateful wacko that he is.

      replyreport
4. 61

   Lisa HWposted 13 years ago

   I don't think it's "hype" when there's a lot of coverage of what kind of person it is that has killed people for "no good reason", as long as the person isn't glamorized.  I think it can be useful for people to have "a reading" on what kind of behavior/personality someone has had before resorting to the incident of violence that got him in the news.
   
   One of the reasons these killers get to where/what they do is that nobody did anything sooner to maybe help them, or at least keep things from getting that out-of-control for them. Somebody with a ten-year-old who spends more time than is healthy playing violent video games may think, "Oh, it's what they all do today."  When that ten-year-old gets to be thirteen and has no friends, his parents may think, "Oh, thirteen is a hard age.  The kids in his school just aren't the kind of kids he likes."  When the kid gets to be seventeen and seems to be a completely different kid than the little kid they once knew, they may think, "Oh - kids grow up and change."
   
   People (the public) in general need a better understanding of how to recognize the difference between "what a lot of kids do at this age" and what should be seen as a "warning flag" (or "screaming alarm bells") that the person needs help.  Even experts, who sometimes try hard to leave room for "individual differences in people" can set the bar they use to measure "OK" a little higher than it really ought to be set.
   
   Anyway, I don't think it's good to glamorize or romanticize killing, or people who are capable of it; but I think the media coverage can help a lot of people learn to recognize warning signs, rather than just write off a person's "apparent off-ness" as "individuality" or even "harmless oddness".  It's also not particularly great that sometimes being a loner is romanticized.
   
   To me, as long as someone who is capable of killing (other than in self-defense or in defense of someone who at immediate, physical, threat) is portrayed by the media as a "mental case", a "sociopath", or at the very least, as "an individual without regard for life" - it's not "hype", and the message is one people these days, in particular, need to see/hear.

   replyreport
5. 61

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   Marilyn Manson was talking about this idiocy some 20 years ago.
   
   If you're dumb enough to do what TV tells you, then "you might as well kill yourself because you're already dead."
   
   Just repeat the early 90s (when Manson was a big deal), but replace Manson's face with whatever the new fad is... Glenn Beck? Keith Olberman? Obama? the Pope?
   
   There have been countless people who have murdered in other people's names.
   
   ...The Crusades come to mind...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed.
      And the Fort Hood killer.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Lisa HWposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think there's some truth to the Marilyn Manson quote, but it's not that simple.  It would be good if these people would kill themselves instead of killing someone else, but they don't.   As "dead" as they may be in some ways, they aren't dead in the way that means they don't watch tv with their damaged brains, don't twist things, and can't go out and buy a gun.  So, better as it may be if they killed themselves, they aren't dead enough not to kill others.  They're damaged, incomplete, twisted, angry - whatever they are - but they aren't truly dead soon enough, and they aren't the kind of people who operate on reason like "you may as well.....because....". 
      
      I once read that when, on the show, "Happy Days", Fonzi got a library care, thousand of kids/people across the country went out and got themselves a library card.  Kids, immature people, and damaged people can be more easily influenced than mature, solid, people (and some kids can be far more mature and solid than some adults are sometimes, so it isn't always who is under 18 or who is over 35).
      
      Kids (even the otherwise sensible-seeming ones) can be impressed by some very strange things, and immature and/or emotionally/mentally-disturbed people can, as well.  Mimicking and immaturity (whether it's chronological immaturity or otherwise) tend to go together.  Kids (and other immature people) copy what impresses them for one reason or another.  There's a reason there's such a thing as "copy-cat crimes".  Personally, I think what someone records on his album is his business and right; but I do think people who use media and airways that reaches the general public need to have some sense of responsibility and be careful not to present what is unhealthy/destructive in a way that makes it look cool or otherwise "impressive".
      
      It's not that hard not to give killers "impressive" or "cool" names, or to present people who are capable of, or interested in, killing as the inferior losers they are.  I don't necessarily think it's media coverage of these violent morons that's the problem.  I think it's more regular television shows and the overall messages that are generally being sent these days.
      
      I'd agree, though, that modern-day version of a Marilyn Manson may be the least of the problems lots of times.  Sometimes the more sinister messages are sent when people who are passed off as "socially acceptable" (or even as "leaders") spew hate and/or see no problem with killing.

      replyreport
6. 77

   MissEposted 13 years ago

   I think the media gives too much hype to a lot of things.  I want to know the news, not shocking stories and local gossip.  Just the facts.

   replyreport