I think that everything that I want to cover is going to take a while to gel in my mind so it will appear somewhat episodically in this blog. To start, though, I would like to comment on the media's treatment of this event.
We have many killings, many mass killings both here and in Europe and elsewhere in the world. All of these events are covered by the media. Does such coverage yield more violence? Of course it does, that is Pathology 101. The monsters perpetrating these outrages are looking to make their pathetic lives more than what they are as they exit them. At least one professional has commented on the way to treat these events in the media:
You can check out the credentials of Dr. Park Dietz on Wiki. He knows what he is talking about. Having said that (and the truth of what he claims is palpable, isn't it?) reflect, please on the coverage of the Aurora and Newtown shootings.
- If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...
- Don't start the story with sirens blaring.
- Don't have photographs of the killer.
- Don't make this 24/7 coverage.
- Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.
- Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.
- Do localize this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market.
Responsible? Over done? You judge but bear in mind that the news media does not generate revenue by being responsible, they generate money by selling papers or magazines or, increasingly, getting hits on their sites. If they can be responsible and generate loot, great!. If they have to fall short, however, they will let dignity and responsibility and common sense fail before they will take a money hit. So what we see is wall to wall coverage with little regard to content. As Rush Limbaugh said a few days after the event, not one thing he reported on the day of the event was true. But every media outlet was reporting!!
This brings us to my favorite failed media outlet, the New York Times. Since the day after the Connecticut shootings, the Times has run page one stories on gun control Every day. At least one story plus editorial. Every day. Their anti-gun agenda is now on full display and they are frothing at the mouth. It does make one wonder what is not getting reported or how their agenda slants other stories. Lately they have come out questioning the right of citizens to carry weapons on their persons, legally. When an intrinsically dishonest entity such as the Times calls for a "review" of existing processes or questions whether something or other ought to be allowed they are, in fact, taking a position that what the current situation is is wrong and they oppose it. The Times may well be the newspaper of record in the United States but it is also scandalously doctrinaire on certain subjects. Among these is gun control. I think that it is fair to say that any article whatsoever that bears, even tangentially, on private ownership of weapons, will be biased.
In closing, let us take a quick look at the generally dismal stock performance of the New York Times during the week since the Connecticut shootings.
|Stock Price for the New York Times|
Yeah. And I have a bridge for you to buy.