So i'm sure that all are aware of the recent school shooting that took place at Success Tech Academy in Cleveland last week (14 year old student took gun into school and attempted to kill several of his peers and teachers before taking his on life). Now this is really upsetting, and is unfortunately the second shooting this year. This stuff seems to make the front page of the news every time it happens. My ethical question is this: Why does the news deem it neccessary to report on these types of stories across the nation? It has been proven that post-columbine school shooters got some of their ideas from that tragic event. Can the media be blamed in any way for this? I think it can in a way. The media should not glorify these stories. My point being...ok, if it happens in your area, perhaps even your state, yes I think that residents should be informed about it. And if you're that big of a news enthusiast but you live in another state, you can search out the stories online yourself. But I do not think it is ethical for these types of stories to be flashed about as front page news, because in doing this, it is glorifying the act. Other troubled teens see pictures of shootings in the papers and on national news and what they take from it is that these students were heard through their malicious acts. After the Virgina Tech shooting, Cho's (gunman) pictures and manifesto were splashed all over the news for weeks. He got exactly what he wanted...he was heard. This is alarming, because unfortunately there are other students out there who feel the same way, and because of this, I do not agree with making these types of stories national news. It is unethical.
What business or good does it do me in California to head about a shooting in Virginia or Ohio. If I had a friend or a loved one at those schools, I would have heard from a friend or family member before hearing on the news anyway. It serves me no purpose to know unless I am directly affected.
Now some might argue with me and say, well if a kid is that messed up, he's probably going to do it anyway..or he/she can still get ideas from violent films. Yes, I see this point, but at the same time, there is something much more sinister and real to see the face of a student your same age kill 10 people than it is to watch Bruce Willis do it in Die Hard.
There are many areas where people can see violence, and all I am saying is that by reducing it in this one area, we might help others in the future from making the same tragic mistakes ( or at least if they do, they won't claim inspiration from past shootings. That's just pouring salt into an already painful wound)
What do others think about this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The whole copycat problem, which is part of the larger problem of what effects media have on us. "We" generally agree that such stories don't affect us, but some research suggests that some media input has some effect. Or that's my impression. But you are asking about school shootings. To oversimplify, such stories can be overemphasized. Even if there are no detrimental effects on susceptible teens, more "useful" stories are squeezed out. However, such tragedy stories can have useful aspects: They can alert us to signs of alientation, direct parents toward the right kind of therapy and so on. So perhaps the issue is one of balance. News media can't ignore news -- particularly in this day of internet overkill -- but they can work hard at being responsible in the way they package it. All that said, whenever certain kinds of terrible things happen, it is undeniable that the overall reaction is disproportionate. But as always we must acknowledge that old print media and old broadcast media are in a battle for survival. What if "perfection" means extinction??? Big questions.
Post a Comment