English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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

3 answers

It would be better to show photos of professor Liviu Librescu, the Holocaust survivor who died protecting his students; or student Zach Petkewicz whose quick thinking saved the lives of everyone in his classroom; or other heroic or admirable individuals.
Not only would this glorify the good over the evil, but it would also help others if they are ever in a similar situation.

2007-04-19 09:39:45 · answer #1 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 2 0

Publishing the name of a criminal does not create more criminals. Especially in our cyberculture, someone who saw him/knew him would have published the information in a blog and the world would have known anyway.

From a media perspective, the public has a right to know who did this. They don't need a nameless, anonymous "someone hurt us." They need a name and a face and a history so they can have closure. Knowing as much as we can about the criminal also is useful to learn about troubled, violent students who could be dangerous in the future. If it hadn't been for Eric and Dylan, I doubt that the teachers and students at VT would have taken the killers plays and comments seriously enough to contact police and administrators. Unfortunately, they weren't able to prevent a massacre. But that sort of awareness is a step in the right direction ...

2007-04-19 09:40:58 · answer #2 · answered by Sarah J 1 · 1 0

I agree with your sentiments 100%.
The worst part is the media profits from these tragedies.

2007-04-19 09:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by jj raider 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers