Down with Sensationalist Media

It has been roughly five days since the shooting in Santa Barbara. Other than the number of folks injured or killed, here is some of what I have learned/heard/seen from the media about the incident: 

1) I have learned the shooter's name and personal information such as where he lived and went to school.

2) I have learned that he is a child of divorce.

3) I have learned that he wrote an extremely disturbing autobiography (which you can apparently read in full somewhere online) and posted many disturbing videos online.

4) I have been told the type of guns that he used, complete with pictures of similar guns (in case we're not aware of what guns look like, maybe?)

5) I have heard of violent outbursts that he had in public leading up to his attack.

6) I have heard many possible reasons for his actions including but not limited to mental illness, his parents divorce, video/computer games, and Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen films.

7) I have stumbled across graphic photos from the crime scene.

8) I have heard that apparently his family tried to intervene before the incident. 

Now here is what I heard/learned/saw about the victims: 

~insert cricket chirping here~ 

Now, I know that there is information out there about them - tributes, articles, and the like. However, in order to find that information, I had to actually do an internet search. Everything on my first list I either stumbled upon or have seen/heard via mainstream media (television/radio/online). Can we stop and think about that for a moment? It seems counter intuitive and, frankly, illogical that the most readily available and broadcast information that we receive about a crime is about the criminal. Especially in cases such as this. 

Let me make a comparison for you. 

I don't need to remind anyone of what happened in our country on September 11, 2001. Quite obviously, society was a lot different then. Facebook and MySpace predecessors such as LiveJournal were all the rage, and the internet had not quite yet become the buzzing hub of instant gratification and almost paralyzing number of media outlets, blogs, social media sites, and other such forums for every corner of society to share news, opinions, or just sheer nonsense. I was an 18 year old college freshman, and I remember quite vividly where I was and the aftermath of the events. What I also remember is the media coverage during and after the tragedy. What did they focus on the wake of the attack? The firefighters, police officers, and other such heroes that responded to the attack and helped in the aftermath. The victims and their stories. The beauty of a country whose citizens came together in a show of strength, solidarity, and support for each other and those that lost their lives. What I didn't hear was a back story about the terrorists who carried out the attacks. There was no breakdown of their personal lives or why they might have joined Al Quaida; at least not widely covered in mainstream media. 

Take it back a little farther than that to the mass shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado. I was, myself, still in high school then, and it was such a shocking tragedy that it seemed the entire country stood still. And, yes, I remember hearing a little bit about the shooters and their weapons, wardrobe, motives. But what was much more prevalent were the stories I heard about the victims. Even the ones that weren't necessarily true, made up by some well-intentioned someone in order to paint a victim or two in a way that would coerce even more sympathy out of a country violently shaken by such a vicious and senseless act of violence against innocent young folks. Again, I'm sure inquiring minds could have found a treasure trove of information about the shooters had they looked for it. But it wasn't blasted into our homes or computers as an idea we should be centrally focused on. 

What has happened to us? Where do our morals priorities lie, when we are more focused on the people who commit such crimes than we are on the helpless victims or on learning ways to prevent such things from happening again? Are we truly that morbid? And what is this morbidity born of? Have we organically become so obsessed with the twisted underbelly of society, so unwilling to pay attention to anything that doesn't shock us with controversy, gore, misery, or tragedy that the media is simply responding to an obvious need? Or have we been force fed this vile dish for so long that we have not only become use to the flavor, but crave it and depend on it for survival? Examples of this are prevalent not only in our actual news sources but in what we choose to watch on television. I am pretty sure that anyone reading this right now can name at least 10 fictional shows based on some type of law enforcement solving murders and other such crimes. Themes range from military (NCIS), forensics (CSI), the basic judicial system (Law and Order), even fairy tales (Grimm). There are shows that revolve around the most disturbed members of society (Criminal Minds, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, Dexter), and shows that have put an almost comical spin on crime solving (Psych, Monk, Bones). [On a side note, I just listed 10 shows about crime and criminals.] Perhaps if it were one and not the other - if we were watching fictional stories that focused on criminals and their crimes, but not being force fed true stories of actual criminals I wouldn't find it quite as troublesome. 

What the media has been doing for at least the last five years or so is sensationalizing criminal behavior. They have shined a light onto a very real problem in our society, but in all the wrong ways. I have read countless studies and testimonials, and even seen a few interviews with criminal behaviorists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other such experts , in which they stress over and over that the correct way for the media to handle events such as mass shootings and serial killings is to leave the suspects (or perpetrators) out of it completely. Report the incident but not the perpetrator. To give them recognition not only feeds their ego and/or "cause", but it also sends a clear message to others with similar idealism or troubles: That their actions will get recognized, they will be noticed, they will be justified by their fame, even applauded by any peers who may sympathize. I have heard these experts make these warnings directly to reporters on the evening or nighttime news, and then watched the same news station (often the same reporters!) continue to talk about exactly what they were warned not to. It has officially become more important to get viewers and ratings than to adhere to what is morally and ethically correct, or at the very least, logical.  

The United States is an unusually violent country (even if we are not as violent as we used to be). Let me share some facts with you: 

*Since the year 2006, there have been 38 public mass killings in the United States, and only four of those were not shootings. 
*These incidents are not segregated to a particular area of the country. Thirty states from California to Massachusetts have been stages for mass shootings.
*15 of the worst 25 mass shootings in the entire world have happened on US soil (Finland is in second place with two entries).
*Out of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in the US, six of them have happened since the year 2007. That's 50% in the matter of a mere seven years! 

I'm finding it harder and harder to believe that this is coincidental and not at least partly a result of how we and our media deal with the aftermath of such crimes. Quite obviously, there are a number of different problems you could find with society and "the system" that, if worked on or fixed, would help to bring all of these numbers down and lessen the frequency of such occurrences. To not acknowledge that would be ignorant. But to ignore our own responsibilities would be just as foolish.

There is a difference between supporting public awareness and sensationalizing a criminal. Should we be made aware of these types of tragedies? Absolutely. You cannot gain anything without exposure, and our ability to almost instantaneously report on things that happen all over the world has brought forth many wonderful things. However, it has also brought about many negative things as well.  It has given that twisted underbelly a soapbox. A platform they did not have before. They aren't hidden, as they used to be, no. Now they are memorialized in every newspaper and magazine, on millions of websites, and in the minds of every citizen of the United States that has access to a radio, computer, television. You see, we have taken the dark underbelly and shone a bright spotlight on it. It no longer lurks in the shadows, careful and precise, timid and shy of the light. It flies out of doors, and parades around smiling, laughing even. It bursts forth with grand displays of confidence and devotion and knows that even if it doesn't survive, the story will turn into legend. It sees us, eyes wide, sitting on the edge of our seats, biting our fingernails, crying out for who, what, where, when, why, how, and more, more, more, more...and it obliges. Because it is dependent on us. On our morbid desire to analyze every minute detail in order to...what, exactly? Why this attachment to knowing? Have we lost touch with ourselves? Have we lost all compassion and empathy? Or maybe we just want to be the one with the most information.  

"I heard the other day that the killer..."
"Oh yea? Well I heard that he...."
"Yea, but did you hear...?" 

We must eventually wake up from our complacency. We must start holding these news sources and other media outlets accountable for their actions. Be aware, not over informed. Know the difference between newsworthy and attention grabbing. Don't ever settle for sensationalism.
 

And wake me up when they stop talking about Elliot Rodger.