What did you do with my RWHN?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

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.

[Eater of Clowns]

I think the reasoning behind it being irresponsible to publish certain types of stories has already been pushed too far. It has reached the logical conclusion of it being irresponsible to, say, cover the riots in Brooklyn a few months back, resulting in a media blackout.

In fact, I think it's responsible to publish things like the Unibomber's manifesto (though from what I understand it was long and incoherent) so that the public is aware of what dangerous types are thinking and are thus better able to refute such arguments. At this point, people who are intentionally seeking them out can read them online whether or not the media wants them to. With wider coverage, the thoughts are actually made less dangerous.

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.

[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.

[Lord Cataplanga]

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.

There is something really wrong with a culture that doesn't realize that NOT talking about this stuff would be even more... cheapening?
Of course the people affected will feel bad about other people discussing it, but it's for the best.

Also, see the paragraph I quoted one page ago.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I think the reasoning behind it being irresponsible to publish certain types of stories has already been pushed too far. It has reached the logical conclusion of it being irresponsible to, say, cover the riots in Brooklyn a few months back, resulting in a media blackout.

In fact, I think it's responsible to publish things like the Unibomber's manifesto (though from what I understand it was long and incoherent) so that the public is aware of what dangerous types are thinking and are thus better able to refute such arguments. At this point, people who are intentionally seeking them out can read them online whether or not the media wants them to. With wider coverage, the thoughts are actually made less dangerous.

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.

Not to mention satanically fucking dangerous

[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.

There is something really wrong with a culture that doesn't realize that NOT talking about this stuff would be even more... cheapening?
Of course the people affected will feel bad about other people discussing it, but it's for the best.

Also, see the paragraph I quoted one page ago.

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

[Cain]

It's hard enough to study terrorism and political violence without censors making things worse.  And such censorship would, as you know, invoke the Streiseand Effect, perversely making them more popular and interesting.  It would also give a tinge of truth to the frequent claims of oppression and hypocrisy which terrorists make frequent use of.

And here's the other thing: almost anything can be an incentive or inspiration to violence.  There is a militant wing of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome movement, for example.  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.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

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?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

It's hard enough to study terrorism and political violence without censors making things worse.  And such censorship would, as you know, invoke the Streiseand Effect, perversely making them more popular and interesting.  It would also give a tinge of truth to the frequent claims of oppression and hypocrisy which terrorists make frequent use of.

And here's the other thing: almost anything can be an incentive or inspiration to violence.  There is a militant wing of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome movement, for example.  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.

that which is verboten becomes sexier.

[Lord Cataplanga]

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

That is the media's job. Someone has to do it.
Even if they didn't, someone on the Internet would do it for free (and to a much greater audience, as Cram rightfully pointed out).

[Eater of Clowns]

I also hope that I don't need a prescription filled anytime this month, because I'm not okay with shopping at a store that promotes censorship and that's, oh, ALL OF THEM IN NEW ENGLAND.

[Cain]

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?

[P3nT4gR4m]

OP is a shining example. A spineless, whiny little fuck begging for censorship. The same spineless, whiny little fuck attitude that embraced your patriot act or retarded drug prohibition laws, for the sake of safety. Only it's not safety, is it? It gets more dangerous as your liberty is eaten away. More draconian punishment. More terrorism. More people going batshit insane and running into a high school with a sawn-off. And still The spineless whiny little fucks don't get it and they scream an clamour for tighter controls on every little crack where danger might seep in and kill their children. And the bad guys tighten the noose and still the spineless whiny little fucks don't feel it around their scrawny, floppy necks.

Or maybe, to them, that feeling is safe and comforting?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

I also hope that I don't need a prescription filled anytime this month, because I'm not okay with shopping at a store that promotes censorship and that's, oh, ALL OF THEM IN NEW ENGLAND.

Word. They could have brown-paper bagged the issue and still sold it. (if you are worried about people experiencing trauma from the pic)

no YOU CAN'T BUY THIS HERE censorship, no people puking and panic attacks in the store.

[Cain]

You know who else cashes in on tragedy? 

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