The word has two meanings. The first meaning is a disease spread by the close contact of one person. The second meaning is a spreading of a harmful idea or practice. And both can be deadly.
This week in lecture we had an ethics moment. We talked about mass shootings and the big question reporters ask themselves surrounding the type of tragedy: do you keep the killer anonymous?
First, there are the logical, surface-level questions you have to ask. What is the purpose of saying the killer's name? Does it add to the story? If so, how? Do you even show the killer's face? Again, why is it important?
Curiosity.
As morbidly strange as it sounds, people are often obsessed with murderers. Not only do people want to know the killer's motives, people are interested in what their last meal was, the last words they spoke and even as Katherine Reed said, "where they sat in kindergarden." There are countless documentaries that focus on criminals and numerous articles written that include last words from those on death row promising, "to send a chill down your spine."
So, why do we care? I get it, really. People are extremely interested in what could possibly posses someone to take the lives of many. The "why?" is the main reason people are so intrigued.
Side note: I'm hear to tell you that it's not because people have mental illnesses. Sure, some mass shooters do have a mental illness, but not the majority do like people initially assume. This is also problematic because 1) After looking at this article, and if you still make that conclusion, you're implying that mental illness is only a growing problem in the U.S., which isn't true. 2) You're placing a really terrible stigma on those that do have a mental illness, and making them feel even more monstrous than they already do.
Anyway, aside from motives, I think people genuinely want to find out killers' backgrounds to make themselves feel safer when they think they are far away from encountering someone with such violence. I also think that people like to put a name to a face. So, we're curious human beings. But at what expense?
There is evidence out there that proves that shooters are inspired by each other. In the most recent Oregon shooting, the gunman had written about the man that killed the two TV journalists back in August. Contagion.
Even apart from the inspiration killers thrive off from other killers, again, I ask why? Journalists need to ask why, this time on a deeper, ethical level. Why are we plastering the face of a murderer on every front page, making them recognizable across the nation? Why are we sharing their last words, the comments of a neighbor claiming, "they were a really nice person" or scrolling their Facebook feed searching for any eyebrow-raising posts? WHY?
What good does it to do give them fame? Instead we should be focusing more on these things surrounding mass shootings:
- Most importantly, the victims and the victims' families.
- Political issues such as gun-control.
- Backgrounds of violence and patterns of crime.
The media and its consumers are feeding into an intense game killers play in attempt of recognition. They're winning.
We don't have the power to altogether prevent shootings from happening, but if this will lower the numbers, we need to try something.
As for the Cheerios someone had for breakfast, who cares?
No comments:
Post a Comment