I was shocked at how much information the news media gave to the public. It seems as if they don't care or understand that there are a lot of sick people who don't need much encouragement to become copy cats. Have they done a disservice to the public? Should they have censored themselves and held back some of the details to protect the public? Wasn't it enough for them to turn the information over to the authorities? Did we really need to see those disturbing photographs of the shooter?
2007-04-20 09:42:06 · 4 answers · asked by bombastic 6 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
I think you are absolutely right. No one needed to see those disturbing pictures, nor the video he sent in of him self. So you are not the only one who thinks that.
2007-04-20 09:50:09 · answer #1 · answered by gods_lil_girl_05 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Number 1: He is not being a copy cat he was purely sick. Whether Columbine had happened or not he would have done it. In the situation it did not happen he would probably mention some other event that said influenced him. If that did not happen he'd mention another event or so on. It is just naturally the way the situation is set up.
Number 2: The massive media attention it purely to help support an anti-gun law stance.
2007-04-20 09:46:05 · answer #2 · answered by tom t 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing sells like News, the more controversial it is, the better it sells. Some of you may remember an old song that describes it perfectly, heres a small quote.
"People like it when you lose
They like Dirty Laundry"
2007-04-20 09:46:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats the question of the day-----or should be at least-----I will star your question and will be reading opinions quite intently---------there are many great great minds out here------I have not made a decision on this subject yet-------still stunned------yet it needs to be debated for sure--------will be interesting to read all the pros and cons and form an informed opinion.
2007-04-20 09:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by EZMZ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋