talkpolitics | (no subject)

My only source for news is the Internet. Currently, most of the media outlets (websites) I'd visit in the event of a big news story have a photograph of the Arizona shooter's face on their main pages (The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, Huffington Post, Drudge Report have it up; MSNBC and NPR don't).

This leads me to ask, Does the prospect of fame incentivize mass killing / killing of famous people?

Let's say we lack empirical evidence to answer the question. Is it not enough that making criminals famous may incentivize others to commit like crimes for media outlets to consider, you know, not making criminals famous?

How do decision makers in media justify making criminals famous? A journalist's duty is to provide the public information that the public is interested in?

What I'm saying is— cover the story, just do it in a tactful manner. This makes me consider why I'm able to see the Virgina Tech shooter's face in my mind's eye, or Tim McVeigh's, or Charles Manson's. Maybe there's a parallel dimension someplace with a society that doesn't repeatedly and consistently make insane people who do big bad things famous.

I'm sure many, maybe most, will disagree with my premise, but I'm looking at the portrait of that guy right now— at his crazy Manson eyes and his smirk, and I can't help but think that he appreciates and enjoys the attention, as McVeigh did, I'm sure, and Manson did and does. So, why as a society do we all agree to reward behavior most of us do not want?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Meus is diagnosing him. I'm not and neither are the people I'm citing. I've said only that the psychiatrists I've heard from (both on tv and elsewhere) and people that I know with schizophrenia are of the opinion that the indications are that he's schizophrenic. Meus is claiming that he definitely isn't.

"Meus is diagnosing him."

Well, no, he doesn't seem to be. To not give a diagnosis is not to give a diagnosis, of course.

"I've said only that the psychiatrists I've heard from (both on tv and elsewhere) and people that I know with schizophrenia are of the opinion that the indications are that he's schizophrenic."

That's an interesting opinion, but it's not a medical one. Diagnoses cannot be given by hearsay and gut instinct.

To not give a diagnosis is not to give a diagnosis, of course.

To say it's definitely not something is a diagnosis. It's not a complete one, sure, but it's still a diagnosis.

That's an interesting opinion, but it's not a medical one. Diagnoses cannot be given by hearsay and gut instinct.

Once again, I am not giving a diagnosis and have not claimed to. Yes, it's an opinion.

"To say it's definitely not something is a diagnosis."

No, it's not. Like I don't think you have schizophrenia, but that's not my diagnosis of you.

"Once again, I am not giving a diagnosis and have not claimed to. Yes, it's an opinion."

Yes, it's an opinion about what a diagnosis is, but without being a diagnosis, which doesn't make any sense. Diagnosing schizophrenia is a formal practice in the mental health industry, it's not a matter for opinion. The way diagnoses are thrown around as a form of social commentary is, aside from being expressly unethical if its being done by a mental health practitioner, one of the inaccurate and stigmatizing treatments of mental health by our culture at large.

"I don't think you have X" =/= "You definitely don't have X"

The way diagnoses are thrown around as a form of social commentary is, aside from being expressly unethical if its being done by a mental health practitioner, one of the inaccurate and stigmatizing treatments of mental health by our culture at large.

Ok.