"Now I'll be famous." These are among the last words written by the young man who killed himself after having murdered eight people and injured five others when he fired a rifle in a mall in Omaha
2007-12-10 05:42:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Excellent question, and one that media "ethicists" have been debating for YEARS. It is unfortunate that it is the nature of the media beast that fame follows infamous acts, and that unbalanced minds will seek out such attention. I am glad that these sorts of people are few and far between and that most people are "normal" and do not commit such heineous crimes for ANY reasons or non-reasons.
Have a "newsy" day!
2007-12-10 12:16:53 · answer #1 · answered by wyomugs 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, it just goes with the territory. People are famous and infamous for what they do or did. Most everyone knows who Hitler was and what he was. Same with Stalin. Bad people can and do make their own history, I guess you could say. The worse the crime is, the longer they are remembered.
Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, because of the number of people they killed and how they killed them. Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth because of who they killed.
There no getting away from it because the news media today, whether they mean to or not, glorify these people by repeating their name over and over and, of course, researching the "why" of the crime.
2007-12-10 20:17:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No matter what people are going to be appalled by the actions of these murderers and the stories are going to make headlines so no matter what they will "Be Famous" for a while for something horrible that they did. You just need to think of it different besides being famous though, really famous isn't the right word for it in reality.
2007-12-10 13:52:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not, because not only does it give them the satisfaction (even though they'll never know) but it also creates copy cats who say, "well hey he's famous now and i'm a nobody so maybe i'll be famous" The last thing we need are more psychos!
2007-12-10 13:50:55 · answer #4 · answered by Amber W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. . I would prefer it if the media would not show pictures of the perp, but concentrate on the victims. Maybe if we stop all the media attention to the perpetrator, fewer people would do something similar for their 15 minutes of fame.
2007-12-10 14:48:40 · answer #5 · answered by sunybuni 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He meant he would be reported for his deed, or for killing 8 people and injuring another 5...
Not for killing himself...
I guess he just didn't understand that "it's difficult to be famous... but it's not difficult to be infamous..."
2007-12-10 13:58:48 · answer #6 · answered by Sweetness_and_Light 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate that these guys release packages to the media now and then the media shows their "glamour shots" holding and posing with weapons. No they should not release the name or image of these monsters.
2007-12-10 13:54:35 · answer #7 · answered by Billy Dee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. I feel the media needs to act responsibly in these matters and tone down their coverage dramatically. They unwittingly reinforce future behavior in similar individuals.
2007-12-10 14:14:11 · answer #8 · answered by Suen 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Those are called infamous. I should be informed about how far crimes are going. ((((((((hugs)))))))))))
2007-12-10 13:50:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋