(no subject)

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

most of us say we don't want it, but clearly enough people do - otherwise they wouldn't watch, read, etc.

To clarify, I freely and readily concede that most people are interested in reading or viewing about the character and motivation of "the villain" in the wake of a major news story of a violent event. [And what makes a major news story of a violent event? (1) mass killing and (2) killing of famous people; I can't think of anything else.] BUT, I think most people really aren't interested in increasing the likelihood of a mass killing or a killing of a famous person.

"my third thought regarding a kind of tragedy of the commons"

Yea, I know and I agree.

For instance, let's say there is a general informal media standard for not doing X (whether that be covering specific tabloid-y stories or showing super awful stuff like you'd see on rotten.com, e.g. charred corpses paraded around, beheading, etc.), but Media Outlet Y goes ahead and shows it anyway and increases their ratings in the process. If the ratings of Media Outlet A, B, and C go down or stay the same, you know they're going to eventually give in and do it.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

If the ratings of Media Outlet A, B, and C go down or stay the same, you know they're going to eventually give in and do it.

I am a staunch atheist and am glad religion isn't as pervasive in our institutions as it once was, but I do wish businesses had values other than profitability.

[msretro.livejournal.com]

Religion is not the only source of morality or ethics.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I get my ethics from my daily horoscopes.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I know, but it was a common one back in the day. My point was that while I am glad religion isn't a pervasive influence to the same extent, it doesn't seem any set of values has taken its place to temper a focus on profitability.