Look, there are all kinds of deck-chairs-on-the-Titanic arguments to be had over definitions, over if a street-gang drive-by is the same as a nutjob/racist opening fire in a crowded place or a robbery that goes off the rails with the assailant killing multiple people, if a politically motivated nutter is the same as or different to a plain old nutty nutter.-- Yeah, all of that.
But the fact is that we have too many, and the fact is that the media -- and our own horrified fascination -- keeps making the perpetrators famous, keeps analyzing their social media presence and poring over whatever written screeds or video rants they had left behind. Then everybody circles back to their previously-held position, "too many guns" or "not enough police," "insufficient and underfunded mental health resources" or "these people aren't getting physically disciplined enough in childhood" or "nobody voted enough for my guy/my ballot initiative in the last election," or whatever.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. But what we've been doing -- and we've been doing all of it, in various states and cities -- is not working. There seems to be a rise recently in people willing to step up and take action -- heroic, personally dangerous action -- and maybe that will help. We need to accept that in a country where civilian firearm ownership is both a protected right and a centuries-old tradition, the supply of guns isn't going to change much no matter what laws are passed; in a country where health care is not a government-run gimme and where we're not in the habit of clapping the merely strange into mental institutions, we're not going to stop many of the dangerously crazed or habitually violent ahead of time. We can stop making them famous; we can stop dwelling on them and start mocking them. Detestation and horror are normal reactions, but there are plenty of abnormal people who admire the ability to elicit them and the Internet has made it possible for such people to find one another.
Mockery seems like a frail tool compared to sending out squads of cops or even teams of kindly mental health professionals. Mockery doesn't advance anyone's political agenda or work towards the wildly varying outcomes we have, severally and each, decided we'd like to achieve. But it makes 'em look like fools and losers.
Other than an immediate -- and by definition, at least slightly late -- reaction to the perpetrator of such violence as it happens, mockery is really all we've got. All the other tools in the box have shown themselves to be useless for the job. Thoughts and prayers do nothing. Strict gun laws in California and New York City don't stop it. Widespread firearm ownership and carry in Texas and Michigan doesn't keep it from happening. Where individuals have been willing -- and able -- to step up, the carnage has been limited, but it's got to start before anyone can stop it. The people who kill en masse want to be big. They want to be famous, respected, to have a name among their peers whoever they are (or think they are). Take that away. Make them small. Make them not merely contemptible but risibly contemptible.
Mass k-llers are punks and losers before they take action; if we're going to keep on splattering their crimes across the media, make it clear that when they do harm, they become even worse losers and even more craven punks.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
9 comments:
Agreed.
Agreed . . . but so long as "the media" values clicks above all else it will not likely happen. Follow the money. Sigh.
Absolutely agree. I remember seeing a short story years ago -- in Analog, I think -- in which a professional comedian started a campaign to make the perps look like pathetic losers and the media cooperated. In real life, unfortunately, these incidents are far too useful for pushing a political agenda.
“these incidents are far too useful for pushing a political agenda”
That’s got nothing to do with why they get covered. They get covered because they’re horrifying and newsworthy, and like it or not, the news media’s job ist to cover newsworthy events, no matter how horrifying.
The idea that they are being covered to “push a political agenda” is conspiranoia at its finest, unless the agenda you mean is “trying to reduce or stop these incedents”, in which case I think we’re all on board with it, unless you’re a sicko.
"Agreed . . . but so long as "the media" values clicks above all else it will not likely happen."
As one who religiously avoids clicking on items that appeal to the titillated population, I would say that those who continue to click on such stuff must bear some responsibility.
Gosh, Anonymous 6:08, if only I had written something about how "our own horrified fascination" is part of the process that keeps shining a spotlight on these creeps and losers.
"The news media's job is to cover newsworthy events, no matter how horrifying" . . . and the more horrifying, the better. "If it bleeds, it leads," as they say. I suppose I could quibble with you about media political bias determining what events they consider newsworthy, but I think you are essentially right.
However, if you think ideology has nothing to do with coverage of mass killings you are living in a fantasy world. Everybody wants to "reduce or stop these incidents" but how should that be done? Most of the media seem to think the best way is to enact stricter gun control laws, if not outright confiscation. Another (though smaller) contingent insists that all law-abiding citizens should be armed so as to stop the perps and minimize the damage. Both sides use such events to push their agendas.
I have a short book, "Mass Killings..Myth, Reality, and Solutions" by David T. Hardy that's very good. One if his suggestions is exactly as you recommend: Don't name the perp. My own suggestion is to always refer to him as "the deranged nutjob" or something similar.
"civilian firearm ownership is...a protected right"
Forgive me for lashing out at a pet peeve of mine, but if you are speaking about the second amendment, that is simply not true. The second amendment protects the right to "keep and bear" arms, not to own them, and then only in the context of a "well regulated militia." The framers of the Constitution made perfectly clear, in the Federalist Papers, that "well regulated" meant regulated by the Federal government, and that included supplying weapons to the soldiers, in the same manner that members of the modern military are supplied with weapons. It was not expected that the militia members would own their weapons. This explicit statement by the people who wrote the Constitution (in this case written by Alexander Hamilton) has been pushed out of our discourse by partisan (i.e. very largely Republican) propagandists whose only real interest is in seeing to it that nothing interferes with the weapons industry's ability to make a profit.
Post a Comment