media coverage in newtown, ct

JC29856

does "the media" care about the children, families and community or do they care about the story? from the looks on their faces and the expression and tone in their voice when delivering the story one would think they actually care about the persons involved, but do they?

is it okay to shove a microphone and camera in a 7 year old face (with parents consent) just after the events unfolded?

is it okay to show 24/7 on the scene videos and pictures of frightened parents and children?

JimmyV

I hear what you are saying. But caring about the story is the media's job. I think it is up to all of us to change the station or turn off the TV when we feel the coverage has gone too far.

Slap upside the head

(with parents consent)

I think your issue should be with them instead of the Media.

They are just doing their job. I am sure some of them have real trouble sleeping at night.

MotoDC

JC29856 wrote:

does "the media" care about the children, families and community or do they care about the story? from the looks on their faces and the expression and tone in their voice when delivering the story one would think they actually care about the persons involved, but do they?

is it okay to shove a microphone and camera in a 7 year old face (with parents consent) just after the events unfolded?is it okay to show 24/7 on the scene videos and pictures of frightened parents and children?

No I think it's pretty despicable and insensitive. Don't think it should be legally prohibited or anything though.

JC29856

Slap upside the head wrote:

(with parents consent)

I think your issue should be with them instead of the Media.

They are just doing their job. I am sure some of them have real trouble sleeping at night.

the classic "im just doing my job" excuse

you think its there job to show pictures of relatives (in this case sister) as they learn of the death(s)?

cincybearcat

You are right, we should just ignore it and it'll go away.

hedonist

MotoDC wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

does "the media" care about the children, families and community or do they care about the story? from the looks on their faces and the expression and tone in their voice when delivering the story one would think they actually care about the persons involved, but do they?

is it okay to shove a microphone and camera in a 7 year old face (with parents consent) just after the events unfolded?is it okay to show 24/7 on the scene videos and pictures of frightened parents and children?

No I think it's pretty despicable and insensitive. Don't think it should be legally prohibited or anything though.

Agreed. But jeez, if I were a parent, I'd be hugging and comforting the fuck out of my child, away from all cameras and other intrusions.

Slap upside the head

JC29856 wrote:

Slap upside the head wrote:

(with parents consent)

I think your issue should be with them instead of the Media.

They are just doing their job. I am sure some of them have real trouble sleeping at night.

the classic "im just doing my job" excuse

you think its there job to show pictures of relatives (in this case sister) as they learn of the death(s)?

Um, yea - that's why they have cameras.

Abe Froman

JC29856 wrote:

does "the media" care about the children, families and community or do they care about the story? from the looks on their faces and the expression and tone in their voice when delivering the story one would think they actually care about the persons involved, but do they?

is it okay to shove a microphone and camera in a 7 year old face (with parents consent) just after the events unfolded?

is it okay to show 24/7 on the scene videos and pictures of frightened parents and children?

No. Especially interviewing the 7yr old. It is sickening. That video will be there for a lifetime. Completely fucking wrong.

JC29856

cincybearcat wrote:

You are right, we should just ignore it and it'll go away.

who said to ignore it?

even flow - question mark

We couldn't beleive how many kids oooops children they were interviewing about this shooting. Why they needed to be asked any questions is beyond me. Again.....sad state of affairs.

mickeyrat

oh I dont know. lets ask someone still reeling in shock if its ok to "xyz".

Seems a bit of decorum lacking these days. I do have to give props to CBS, and Bob Orr specifically for repeatedly trying to keep the wild speculation and inaccurate info in check. He used to be on our local news. National grabbed a good one with him.

Drowned Out

JC29856 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You are right, we should just ignore it and it'll go away.

who said to ignore it?

This is one issue that ignoring the problem can help. I read the same complaint from so many on friday....well guess what the common trait between all of the critics was? They were all tuned in to the tv coverage.
Nearly all tv news is garbage. Watching it contributes to the problem (and so many others).

polaris_x

i know someone who knows someone who lost a child in this massacre ... and i can tell you that the media are making an already painful and tragic event much worse ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

i know someone who knows someone who lost a child in this massacre ... and i can tell you that the media are making an already painful and tragic event much worse ...

How so exactly?

I don;t think it could get much worse. Is it just the constant reminder? I would think that anywhere those poor mom's and dad's went would present constant reminders. I can;t even imagine it.

Yet, if my little girl felt like talking about what happened or talking about her friends that she lost, or the ones that survived with her, I think that I would let her. I'm sure those parents didn;t just let their kids tal to the media. I'm sure they talked to plenty of people to help.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

How so exactly?

I don;t think it could get much worse. Is it just the constant reminder? I would think that anywhere those poor mom's and dad's went would present constant reminders. I can;t even imagine it.

Yet, if my little girl felt like talking about what happened or talking about her friends that she lost, or the ones that survived with her, I think that I would let her. I'm sure those parents didn;t just let their kids tal to the media. I'm sure they talked to plenty of people to help.

they are harassing the family for interviews ... basically stalking them ... not leaving them alone ...

norm

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

—Roger Ebert

Slap upside the head

norm wrote:

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

—Roger Ebert

:thumbup:

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

How so exactly?

I don;t think it could get much worse. Is it just the constant reminder? I would think that anywhere those poor mom's and dad's went would present constant reminders. I can;t even imagine it.

Yet, if my little girl felt like talking about what happened or talking about her friends that she lost, or the ones that survived with her, I think that I would let her. I'm sure those parents didn;t just let their kids tal to the media. I'm sure they talked to plenty of people to help.

they are harassing the family for interviews ... basically stalking them ... not leaving them alone ...

Ah, I see. I thought you meant just all the coverage. Thanks.

DewieCox

norm wrote:

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about ‘Basketball Diaries’?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.

The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

—Roger Ebert

I think movies and video games play a part in desensitizing kids to violence younger and younger, but no doubt the news media do more harm than good.

norm