Aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre

[fpb]

So the murderous moron who killed 32 innocent people because he felt like it sent a video detailing his rotten little excuses before he did the only right thing and killed himself. All right. But can anyone give me any reason why TV and radio news broadcasts should subject us to extensive excerpts from his ugly screed, from which we can draw neither education nor pleasure?

Comments

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

Because they can't, so they won't let anyone else, look away from a train wreck, because "it's news" and "the public have a right to know." Nevermind if folks don't want to exercise that alleged right at the whim of others. This whole affair doesn't surprise me, though. You know my opinion of the press.

[lazy-neutrino.livejournal.com]

In the USA - because it will attract viewers, which pleases advertisers. Over here, I don't know. Because if they don't, the competition will?

I don't know. If I think something is in poor taste, I turn it off. For example, I don't watch any reality shows. Listening only to Radio 4 makes life a little easier, but either their standards are slipping or I am growing old.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what purpose it serves(besides lazy neutrino's point about advertisers) to show these images. Reading about them is more than enough.
They said the decision to air them was debated and pondered upon, but it seems like not showing something isn't really a viable option anymore.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

Because news as a form of information has long since died out. It made as tiny little comeback from the yellow journalism of the early 20th cent. but it's all back to that now.
There is no "news" only entertainment, and this is the modern version of a public execution.

And because journalists assumes that freedom of speech somehow means they have the right to show whatever they want morality and consequences and human decency be damned.

And because journalists must have a different definition of the word "integrity" *sigh*

Really, what I think is a huge issue is the news no longer wants to report that want to dictate. They want to tell people what to think about issues, hence all the pundits and such constening babeling on the news shows. It might not be so bad if they were looking at big pictures like why in America the youth culture is such that someone *can* do what the shooter did.

But instead, they're just gonna look at why that specific shooter did what he did and blame whatever they have a personal beef against, so really all the "analyzation" passed off a news is utlimately empty and useless and only an excuse for exploitation and titliation. >_<

Or at least that's how I've begun to feel these days.
I remember trying to figure out how to cote this last election, and I finale gave up with "news" to figure the canidates out and jsut went straight for the congressional records and started reading the speeches the canidates actually made and that was *WAY* more informative.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

It was predictable.

[secularhermites.livejournal.com]

The media only cares about one thing: ratings. - sad to say, they got it.

[dirigibletrance.livejournal.com]

So... just don't watch the broadcasts. That simple.

I've been reading "A Knight of the Word" the past two days, and I had no idea that they were even playing video excerpts until you mentioned it here.

The media isn't forcing you to do anything. You always have the option of turning off the television. An option that I highly recommend, by the way. It's worked wonders for me.