How much responsibility(if any) do you think the media has in this VT killing spree? Do we really need to guarantee fame to loners like the columbine killers and this piece of trash? We can tell the story without making the killer a house hold name.. we can tell the story without humanizing the killer.. That simply promotes more of the same imo. Deranged loners have a chance to command the attention of the entire world. Take the stage away, and in a lot of cases the motive would go with it in my opinion.
Is the media responsible?
- Thread starter Okieslims
- Start date
First, everybody IS responsible for his or her own actions, period. That said, yes, the media does over analyze and give too much publicity to these acts and these people. What I find most disturbing about this particular incident is the number of people who flagged this guy as having a serious problem, including a court which issued restaining orders and a "needs immediate psychological intervention" and then failed to take adequate action to protect him from himself and everybody else from him. They either did not have the resources or interest to help the guy or were afraid if they pushed too far without his consent they would be accused of "violating his civil rights" or something (ya gotta love the ACLU)! And how many other tortured souls are there out there who will never go this far, but will live lives of much less promise than they could have with the right help, even if they don't know they need it.
Yes, he was a loner, yes, he wrote troubled plays, stalked girls and had an obsession with violence. So what? He was messed up in the head. The media takes the time to then go and blow his name up into some kind of infamy based frenzy. Conspiracy theories will then start to emerge, and guess what? He had it all planned, he knew this would happen. They all do, I think they even found a 3 page plan of this VT attack. It's messed up.
That's true, but there are plenty of negative things that sale that we don't take advantage of. Our news is built on negativity and it's having an effect on our society imo. When Tomothy McVeigh was executed, he was allowed a stage from which to show the world that he was "The captain of his ship".. He was allowed to give his message in a dignified manner that may have recruited hundreds of anti-government people to start planning towards something as horrific as McVeigh's crimes. Why give him a stage? Why allow his message to infect parts of our society? The same with the columbine kids. Who knows how many loaners and bullied kids saw what they did and then saw the human side of the killers and identified with them...
Furthermore, showing the footage 700 times per day is just over kill.
Furthermore, showing the footage 700 times per day is just over kill.
The only way to fight the media is to "just stop watching." I have not watched the news for years. If I want to learn about something I can go to the internet and get it without being bombarded with negative energy.
I started looking for ways to make myself better, and my life is better as a result.
The news gives the average person a reason to make excuses in their own lives. Really it is the media's job to make the average person feel like they can't do anything to protect themselves and create paranoia. They get ratings as a result. People love misery, why? I don't know.
I also believe that the media creates a defeatist attitude in people. Again making them think that there is nothing they can do to make their lives better.
A few years ago I had an idea for the AGNN, the All Good News Network. Basically a network that would take every news event and show how people came together and supported each other.
Like pointing out that a professor at VT put himself in front of the gunman in order to give his students more time to get out.
Gives a different feeling on the whole story for me. Someone ALWAYS does the right thing in these situations. They don't always make the news though.
The media is not responsible for any of the news they report. They are responsible for how they report it.
Just stop watching.
I started looking for ways to make myself better, and my life is better as a result.
The news gives the average person a reason to make excuses in their own lives. Really it is the media's job to make the average person feel like they can't do anything to protect themselves and create paranoia. They get ratings as a result. People love misery, why? I don't know.
I also believe that the media creates a defeatist attitude in people. Again making them think that there is nothing they can do to make their lives better.
A few years ago I had an idea for the AGNN, the All Good News Network. Basically a network that would take every news event and show how people came together and supported each other.
Like pointing out that a professor at VT put himself in front of the gunman in order to give his students more time to get out.
Gives a different feeling on the whole story for me. Someone ALWAYS does the right thing in these situations. They don't always make the news though.
The media is not responsible for any of the news they report. They are responsible for how they report it.
Just stop watching.
Last edited:
Sorry but I think that the media are being blamed because it's the easy way for people to pass the buck with regards to personal responsibilities and our own roles within society. This guy was known to be mentally disturbed and displayed bizarre behaviour but he was not dealt with properly.
Maybe if you screw your heads on for a minute you'll be able to see that the media attention here has had a great affect on highlighting the problems that can arise if mentally unstable people are allowed to slip through the net with regards to regular supervision or detainment.
For those of you who think the media are to blame please answer this
What were the media supposed to do here?
Should they have not shown what went on?
If you think that the media should stop reporting the truth and cover-up major events in order to deny murderers publicity then maybe you also think that during WW2 everyone should have kept their mouths closed over the holocaust so no more attention was drawn to those attention seeking Nazi's?
Bringing attention to these events creates pressure on society to correct the mistakes it's making by producing these people in the first place
Maybe if you screw your heads on for a minute you'll be able to see that the media attention here has had a great affect on highlighting the problems that can arise if mentally unstable people are allowed to slip through the net with regards to regular supervision or detainment.
For those of you who think the media are to blame please answer this
What were the media supposed to do here?
Should they have not shown what went on?
If you think that the media should stop reporting the truth and cover-up major events in order to deny murderers publicity then maybe you also think that during WW2 everyone should have kept their mouths closed over the holocaust so no more attention was drawn to those attention seeking Nazi's?
Bringing attention to these events creates pressure on society to correct the mistakes it's making by producing these people in the first place
Some good points CC, but I still think the media holds a portion of the responsibility here. The murderer called the columbine killers "martyrs" in his manifesto and aligned himself with them. Where did he send his manifesto? Why did he make a manifesto? He sent his manifesto to the media because he knew the media would make him into a house hold name. He felt small. He felt insignificant. He changed all that with the help of the media.
What were the media supposed to do here? Tell the story with a focus on the victems and not the murderer. Most importantly, do not give the killer a voice. Don't show his self made video and read from his manifesto. That's what he wanted.
Should they have not shown what went on? They should have shown it, but you can do that without giving a voice to the killer.
BTW there's a difference between a movement that claimed the lives of millions and a rogue gunman going on a rampage. A single deranged person can be inspired by something as pointless as the promise that for better or worse, the world will remember your name once your gone..they will remember your name before the name of your victems even.
What were the media supposed to do here? Tell the story with a focus on the victems and not the murderer. Most importantly, do not give the killer a voice. Don't show his self made video and read from his manifesto. That's what he wanted.
Should they have not shown what went on? They should have shown it, but you can do that without giving a voice to the killer.
BTW there's a difference between a movement that claimed the lives of millions and a rogue gunman going on a rampage. A single deranged person can be inspired by something as pointless as the promise that for better or worse, the world will remember your name once your gone..they will remember your name before the name of your victems even.
True in some respects but then that only shows half a story, if you didn't put the murderer under focus then the public wouldn't learn about things to look out for in others like him. I always think that bad things come from half-truths.
I think it's important to remember that people who go on killing sprees aren't normal people who want to get famous, they are mentally ill people who would have killed anyway, the only thing media has influenced is the way he did it. The desire to kill didn't come from the media, it's from his f##ked up head
Why not look to the inadequate measures within the education system and social services at picking up on this behaviour earlier.
One of this guys tutors said she reported him years ago but nothing was done. That's where the problem is!! There's another killer out there right now with anger building up inside him who is being overlooked because there aren't the resources in place to identify him or funds available deal with him.
I think that's far more to blame
I don't really know much on the whole story with the shootings and how mentally ill the guy was that did it. I mean, maybe there were many reasons why one would think he might do something like this but I think that in the end it's hard to predict things like that. I saw in an article somewhere that he wrote poems or stories that were extremely violent. So what? People do that all the time! Imagine if we classified people who made horror movies as a threat to society.
Like I said, maybe he did do something that would warrent attention. Like mutilating a dog or something. But otherwise you can't just assume someone is going to shoot up a place because they are quiet and enjoy watching/writing about violence.
~Nicole
Like I said, maybe he did do something that would warrent attention. Like mutilating a dog or something. But otherwise you can't just assume someone is going to shoot up a place because they are quiet and enjoy watching/writing about violence.
~Nicole
Okieslims said:
Ok, here is my two cents-my OPINION on the subject.
The answer to this question is no. Without 'getting to know' the killer and his life and without humanizing him we (society) limit ourselves to solutions for the future. We shorten the scope of understanding how this tragedy came to be.
I'm a big beliver in making everyone responsible for his or her actions, especially once we've become aware of the concept of right, wrong and consequence. That being said, what these people have in common is a feeling of impotence, of being oppressed. They feel worthless, they are sad and tormented souls. Another thing they have in common is they usuaslly are victims themselves--of ridicule, torment and shame which only fuels the fire within them. They are time bombs waiting to blow up.
They need someone somewhere at some point to help them diffuse their anger. They've been failed.
Now I'm not making excuses for anyone but a person 'like that' does not become 'like that' overnight or by himself. It's a long process which often takes years and years. It's starts in school, when the 'cool' kids or the mean kids take advantage of someone who by nature may be docile, quiet and troubled. It's like taunting and taunting a dog and then becoming surprised he bit.
We as a society need to take some of the blame for these people, something could have been done. And in retrospect we can all see the signs...
Last edited:
Yeah he did do other things, compaints had been made about his behaviour by other pupils, I don't think any involved violence though
Also, the kid went out weeks before the killings and bought a gun from a shop!
Sorry all you Americans but if you insist on allowing your citizens to buy guns (which I think is crazy) then at least make sure that people who have been refered for counseling in the past due to their disturbing behaviour can't buy them! Is that too much to ask?
Actually I thought that if you were ever in a mental institution then you could not obtain a gun? Am I incorrect?
~Nicole
Guns were around a long time before these types of killing sprees became an almost regular occurance.
People who choose to do such evil, be it from mental illness or just plain meanness, will kill people, with or without guns. Had he not been able to purchase a gun, he would've made a bomb, he'd have found a way. People who are intent on evil are intent on evil. He wouldn't have just said, "well, I want to kill some people, but I can't go legally by a gun, so I guess I'll scrap the whole thing."
There are many factors in these tragedies to consider - increased violence (movies, games, music, etc), mental illness, media sensationalism, cruelness of others while authorities ignore it, the breakdown of traditional families/values, physical/mental/sexual abuse - the lists go on, and no one can agree on where the root cause/blame lies.
To simply say that taking away legal means of purchasing guns would solve the issue is overly simplistic and unrealistic.
People who choose to do such evil, be it from mental illness or just plain meanness, will kill people, with or without guns. Had he not been able to purchase a gun, he would've made a bomb, he'd have found a way. People who are intent on evil are intent on evil. He wouldn't have just said, "well, I want to kill some people, but I can't go legally by a gun, so I guess I'll scrap the whole thing."
There are many factors in these tragedies to consider - increased violence (movies, games, music, etc), mental illness, media sensationalism, cruelness of others while authorities ignore it, the breakdown of traditional families/values, physical/mental/sexual abuse - the lists go on, and no one can agree on where the root cause/blame lies.
To simply say that taking away legal means of purchasing guns would solve the issue is overly simplistic and unrealistic.
calcium said:
You know I'm not sure...You would think especially when he was in counceling for depression and being suicidal but to be honest with you I'm not sure if he was actually institutionalized or just treated for depression....but like I said you could still buy them on the black market.
I agree deschain....there are a lot of factors involved...
Last edited:
Hmmm, I'm not sure that finding out if someone has a history of mental issues before handing over a lethal weapon should count as a violation of human rights.
Plus, it isn't true that anyone can get hold of a gun outside of the US. I would have no idea how to do that; guns aren't bought and sold outside of the criminal underworld in any European country. If I tried I'd almost certainly be reported and arrested. Funnily enough this system of 'if they own a gun then they are commiting an offence' (excluding people like farmers with licenses) has prevented any European countries from having the problem with guns that America has
It is a bit simplistic but when you consider that countries that have legal gun ownership are also the countries that have the highest levels of gun crime then you can't try and pretend that there isn't a link
