What did you do with my RWHN?

[AFK]

So here's something I've been chewing on -- the media's collective response to tragedies is part of the fuel for these events. I have no doubt that some of the school shootings we've endured were "inspired" by columbine. So where exactly IS the line? How would you know if you (a hypothetical journalist) crossed it?

I mean, after columbine, virginia tech, etc, there were full biopics on those fucks. The media shined a spotlight on them and their message got out to everybody. I wouldn't say that they were glamorized like rock stars, but some elements of their struggle were romanticized. I was in high school when the Columbine massacre happened, and I recall the media playing up Harris and Klebold's outsider-ness. They talked about how these kids were persecuted for being different, and explained their rage as basically a response to systemic bullying. (they also said Doom 2 and Rammstein were responsible, but blah blah blah) I know a lot of my black trenchcoat wearing friends were horrified, but felt sympathetic to the bullying angle, the way it was presented.

I think we've come a long way since then. James Holmes, for example, has definitely not gotten the same media treatment. We keep seeing the image of him all spaced out and drugged up. The reporting about him has focused on his arrest and trial, not his motivation. So I think we handled that one better.

As a journalist, you want to explain WHY these tragedies happen, but you don't want to glamorize them. In a case like Columbine where there is a back story like systemic bullying which goes unchecked, and there were some good reasons for being angry (even if the murderers did not deal with that anger in a good way) how do you report on it? Is it important to downplay the killer's reasoning? Is it irresponsible to publish things like - say - the unibomber manifesto - if they might inspire other people? What do you guys think?

I'm all about figuring out what makes these people tick if it can help prevent future incidents.  And I think the line between that and creating celebrity or cult-of-personality is fine, but, in most cases you know it when you see it.  To me, the way Rolling Stone is handling this crosses that line, when this is still VERY fresh for those who went through it, many in the infancy of their recovery that will go on for years, if it ever ends.  I think it's just rather incentive, and in my opinion, minimizes and cheapens the horror and pain that piece of shit created.

I took the pic and its significance completely differently.

YMMV.

Read the article in the OP again and focus on the reaction of the victims to that cover, and try to put yourself in their shoes, and look at it again.

Oh I understand WHY they are upset and there is outrage.

I want to know what it is about the culture all these school shooters, bombers and such are raised in, (which is the culture we are all raised in) makes these (mostly) men do this shit.

How would we feel if he was considered ugly on a physical level?

No different.  Don't give the fucker that limelight.  Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism.  Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star. 

[AFK]

You know who else cashes in on tragedy? 

Doctors.  Evil fucks should be banned.  Making money off human misery and suffering, it's disgusting.

I am going to assume someone temporarily hacked your account, or maybe you bumped your head, because this is seriously one of the silliest things I've ever read on this site.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You know who else cashes in on tragedy? 

Doctors.  Evil fucks should be banned.  Making money off human misery and suffering, it's disgusting.

I am going to assume someone temporarily hacked your account, or maybe you bumped your head, because this is seriously one of the silliest things I've ever read on this site.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=993

[Lord Cataplanga]

Don't give the fucker that limelight.  Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism.  Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.

Why not? Do you really think he was motivated by fame? That he would have liked to appear in Rolling Stone?
He probably didn't even read that kind of magazine.

[Cramulus]

What we're discussing is censorship. My answer is no.

I'm not talking about censorship so much as asking if the media has a responsibility to discourage copycat crime. Because their reporting definitely plays a role in it. Or does it just not matter because all killers are psychopaths?

I also completely reject the idea of journalists determining what the public is ready for and able to handle. It's condescending on top of being outright morally wrong.

I fully agree. I think it's a tougher issue than just whether or not to report on a tragedy - I think there is a fine line I think they should walk in how they discuss it.

to be clear though, I don't think that line was crossed by printing the guy's face on rolling stone

I DO think that line was crossed in the columbine reporting--but it's hard to say how to explain their motivations and address systemic bullying without in some ways apologizing for their behavior

And such censorship would, as you know, invoke the Streiseand Effect, perversely making them more popular and interesting. 

Anything one can have a strong opinion on can be a spur to violence, and even if censorship were only invokved to cover literature definitively linked to acts of violence (manifestos by convicted terrorists, for example), it would result in a vast cull of available knowledge and information.

yeah, well said -- there's no way to say definitively what's going to make somebody think it's okay to kill - and those types of people are already unhinged and probably don't need a great excuse to flip out.

[AFK]

There is discussion, and then there is cashing in on tragedy.

Still haven't explained how using an entirely unaltered picture of the suspect and reporting on his background is different from what any other media organization has done.

Hey, the NYT and WaPo and Guardian and Telegraph all charge for their services, and they all reported extensively on the Boston Bombings.  Are they not also cashing in?  Does not the entire idea of a for-profit press involve cashing in on tragedy on a daily basis?

Actually from what I've read Rolling Stone has yet to confirm or deny whether or not they altered or doctored the photo in any way.  I'm guessing there is probably a good reason for that silence. 

[AFK]

Don't give the fucker that limelight.  Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism.  Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.

Why not? Do you really think he was motivated by fame? That he would have liked to appear in Rolling Stone?
He probably didn't even read that kind of magazine.

I said it already, it also insults and minimizes the tragedy and pain endured (and still being endured) by the victims.

[Cramulus]

I think we can agree that they crossed a line here:

[Left]

I think we can agree that they crossed a line here:

JESUS H CHRIST!
That magazine has no morals.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

They're trying to make him look like a rock star has been possibly the most aggravating parroted statement of this whole thing.

That's a photo of the kid. It's what he looked like. If it doesn't fit everyone's general idea of what a monster is supposed to look like then maybe that's a good assumption to challenge.

Bingo.

[Left]

They're trying to make him look like a rock star has been possibly the most aggravating parroted statement of this whole thing.

That's a photo of the kid. It's what he looked like. If it doesn't fit everyone's general idea of what a monster is supposed to look like then maybe that's a good assumption to challenge.

Bingo.

...People don't like to admit evil is a banal thing. 
It makes life a lot easier for evil people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh I understand WHY they are upset and there is outrage.

I want to know what it is about the culture all these school shooters, bombers and such are raised in, (which is the culture we are all raised in) makes these (mostly) men do this shit.

How would we feel if he was considered ugly on a physical level?

I think this last question is an incredibly important one, because it speaks directly to the American Cult of Beauty (as well as to the elevation of fame under any circumstances to a coveted status) and to our latent Disneyfied belief in beauty=virtue and ugly=evil.

[Doktor Howl]

What we're discussing is censorship. My answer is no.

I'm not talking about censorship so much as asking if the media has a responsibility to discourage copycat crime. Because their reporting definitely plays a role in it. Or does it just not matter because all killers are psychopaths?

The media - journalists, rather - have the responsibility to print the news.  They do not have the responsibility and/or the moral authority to decide what news we're ready for.

The principle objection here is that the kid doesn't fit the preconceived, pre-packaged notion of a terrorist.  If he'd been ugly or brown & bearded, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

But he's the kid next door, so RWHN associates him with "rock star".

[Doktor Howl]

Don't give the fucker that limelight.  Write articles about him, do the in depth-journalism.  Don't put him on a cover like he's a terrorist rock-star.

Why not? Do you really think he was motivated by fame? That he would have liked to appear in Rolling Stone?
He probably didn't even read that kind of magazine.

I said it already, it also insults and minimizes the tragedy and pain endured (and still being endured) by the victims.

Because he's a handsome kid and not brown and bearded.  Gotcha.

[AFK]

It's not his appearance, it's that he is appearing on the front cover of a rock magazine like he's a rock star.  It's elevating him to a status he doesn't deserve.  That limelight is better deserved by the victims or the people who selflessly sprang into action to help victims.  Write about him, study him, but don't put him on a mass media perch.