It seems to me that this guy was miserable and suicidal. But after seeing the Columnbine incident he decided he should die famously. He had no motive for killing 32 people other than because he thought it would get his name and picture in the news. His only wish was to make everyone in the country know and care who his is. The media has successfully granted that wish.
This tragedy can be covered just as well without ever mentioning the guy's name or showing his picture. Focus on celebrating the lives of the victims. Let the criminal who caused it die anonymously.
If this most recent psychopath didn't know the names of the Columbine killers, would he have named them as martyrs, idolized them, and ultimately copied them?
Shouldn't the media be responsible for continuing this horrible cycle?
2007-04-19
09:31:19
·
3 answers
·
asked by
JustAnotherEngineer
3
in
News & Events
➔ Media & Journalism
I was hoping to get some good counter arguments...
Perhaps annonymous was the wrong term. I agree we should know his words and his background to learn from the incident.
But there's a difference between telling us who he is and making him a celebrity. When you see his picture on the front page of newspapers and websites, that's called celebrity. And some people will find that desirable even if they get it by doing horrible things.
2007-04-19
10:04:28 ·
update #1