Connecticut School Shooting

[PseudoSABR]

Little kids? Wtf?

[luke829]

It would have been nice to see the gunman apprehended to face the punishment that he so rightfully deserved. Unfortunately (like so many of these other physcopaths) he took the cowardly way out.

[minn55441]

I heard it was a 24 year old, that went into his mom's classroom. Killed her and then started killing the kids in her class.

How bad would someone life has to be to resort to something like this?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Everyone will deride him publicly and then rush home to watch television that examines every minutia of his life... feeding right into the reason why he did this. Fame. Publicity.

 

What I'd give to see every major news network treat him as a non-entity and never mention his name. Talk about the issue all you want but never mention this prick's name... not even once.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Brock, I've heard that sentiment from plenty of people today, and after similar tragedies. But you're applying WAY too much rational thought to what might be the most irrational act a human can perform. This simply isn't something you can ignore and it will go away.

 

However, I'm totally on board with focusing less media attention on such tragedies*, as a means of respect for the victims and to avoid sowing unnecessary fear. I just know I'm going to get some sideways looks when I bring my infant daughter to the local playground during school hours now, and I'm sure schools are going to try to "beef up" security. But it's all going to have about as much effect as taking your shoes off at the airport.

 

* Although the fact that we're posting about it many miles away on a baseball forum suggests that we feed the media attention too, even if we don't feel like "that kind" of media junkie.

[gunnarthor]

Maybe the Yankees will wear elementary baseball hats so we can ignore the gun problem again.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, I've heard that sentiment from plenty of people today, and after similar tragedies. But you're applying WAY too much rational thought to what might be the most irrational act a human can perform. This simply isn't something you can ignore and it will go away.

 

However, I'm totally on board with focusing less media attention on such tragedies*, as a means of respect for the victims and to avoid sowing unnecessary fear. I just know I'm going to get some sideways looks when I bring my infant daughter to the local playground during school hours now, and I'm sure schools are going to try to "beef up" security. But it's all going to have about as much effect as taking your shoes off at the airport.

 

* Although the fact that we're posting about it many miles away on a baseball forum suggests that we feed the media attention too, even if we don't feel like "that kind" of media junkie.

 

I'm not talking about ignoring the tragedy or the mental health issues that caused it. I'm talking about ignoring the man that caused it.

[TheLeviathan]

Here is what I'm proud of - we're 6 posts in here at TD.....and no one has taken this issue as a way to grandstand about guns. It seems like every time this happens - a school shooting, the batman movie, etc. - one side of the other has to use this to hammer their agenda. Let's keep that **** the frig out of this please.

 

Couldn't agree with you more RP - these guys get all the fame and publicity they could ever hope for following these events. They become stars for a day in a sea of blood and it disgusts me. Hell, today, we had such a rush to name the shooter that the damn media is reporting the name of the brother as the shooter rather than the actual guy! Just so they can get the scoop on who slaughtered innocent children in a place they should feel is as safe as any in their lives.

 

I can't imagine what that would be like. I teach second grade in a K-3 school, even thinking about this happening there makes me so angry at everyone who will now exploit this problem for whatever agenda they have. It's absolutely disgusting.

[TheLeviathan]

My bad, gunnathor already brought us to that stupidity. Let's keep it at a one-time offense. These tragedies are far too often politicized.

[biggentleben]

It's funny that people get up in arms (no pun intended) about guns after incidents like this and then don't blink about reducing the funding to mental health agencies...

 

I know, Lev, you wanted to avoid the gun topic, but being a mental health social worker, that's the thing that drives me bonkers as I was denied a raise based on the loss of federal funding for mental health agencies once again. I'm actively job searching because I can't afford to continue doing the job I do, and I don't pump my own abilities, but I work hard at helping consumers improve their well being along with building skills to maintain their stability. The folks that give a darn quickly find that giving a darn doesn't pay a bill, and they leave for something that will. I work in the unit of our agency that deals with those who are the most intense and nearest to permanent mental hospitalization, and our current case management staff of 8 has 4 with less than six months experience within this unit. There is only one case manager left from the day I started just over four years ago. With turnover like that so rampant and common, how can one imagine those with mental illness receiving consistent, excellent care that they so desperately need?

[TheLeviathan]

It's funny that people get up in arms (no pun intended) about guns after incidents like this and then don't blink about reducing the funding to mental health agencies...

 

I think you and I have shared similar thoughts on this before ben, I know I've shared that I have worked in mental health before. (5 years of it actually, decided adolescent mental health was a less stressful thing to do while completing grad school. What the hell was I thinking!) But I hesitate to want to go down the mental health route on this one. Last night yahoo (credible journalism!) posted a horrific account of "what we know now" about this guy in which they very heavily implied that Aspergers was to blame and went on to cite growing autism numbers around the world. Not surprisingly, that article was edited to remove two paragraphs that were horribly innaccurate about that particular disorder, but the damage was already done. Just about any act like this would be easy to qualify someone for mental illness - I think it is a road we try to travel to quickly to help rationalize the horror to ourselves. I'm not sure now is the time for that issue either.

 

That said, I agree with your larger point. If there is one thing I learned in the years I worked mental health it's that the pay and stress of it pretty much leaves only people with mental health issues themselves in charge of care. Good people are few and far between.

[Kobs]

I know, it's just like when people got all political about the bridge collapse and said that we should spend more money on infrastructure.

[Squirrel]

People will rant about his for a while, then forget about it, except for those directly affected. And nothing will change, and nothing will get done, and nothing will improve because no one will agree on how to prevent it next time or want to spend tax dollars to implement anything that might help.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm not talking about ignoring the tragedy or the mental health issues that caused it. I'm talking about ignoring the man that caused it.

 

I get that -- but that's ascribing some really rational behavior to a lunatic. Nobody does this kind of thing just to get his name in the newspapers. Tip-toeing around his name isn't going to act as some kind of deterrent.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I get that -- but that's ascribing some really rational behavior to a lunatic. Nobody does this kind of thing just to get his name in the newspapers. Tip-toeing around his name isn't going to act as some kind of deterrent.

 

It's not about tip-toeing around this particular man's name. It's about denying the people who do these terrible things something they certainly wanted: fame. Was this man mentally disturbed? Certainly, and we need to do a better job of identifying these warning signs.

 

I don't think it's any coincidence that these kinds of shootings have continued to escalate since the massive publicity of Columbine. If you're mentally unstable and considering such an act, knowing that your name will go down in the annals of history is only encouragement to one-up the horrible wretch who shot up a school/theatre/whatever before you.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think it's any coincidence that these kinds of shootings have continued to escalate since the massive publicity of Columbine. If you're mentally unstable and considering such an act, knowing that your name will go down in the annals of history is only encouragement to one-up the horrible wretch who shot up a school/theatre/whatever before you.

 

The killers at Columbine were motivated, in part, by fame for their acts. Yet another tragedy happened when our media gave them that victory.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Do you think if the media hadn't focused as much on Columbine or printed the name of the Virginia Tech shooter or whatever, that this kid in Connecticut may have just stayed home last Friday? You're missing the part of these being IMMENSELY irrational people and acts -- there are no easy answers. It doesn't really work to "put yourself in their shoes" so to speak and think these things through logically. There is absolutely no way that "fame" is the tipping point that causes these kind of acts.

 

Again, I'm all for less sensationalized coverage of this or any event, but let's not kid ourselves -- that's not going to help as a deterrant. It's just a matter of taste and etiquette for some of us, maybe/hopefully for the victims too, I don't know.

[Riverbrian]

The killers at Columbine were motivated, in part, by fame for their acts. Yet another tragedy happened when our media gave them that victory.

 

The Media gave them? You mean the people... you and me... right?

 

Any expectation that the media will stay away from something that the people are looking for is a wasted expectation. The Days of Kronkite are long gone and its because Kronkite wouldn't get high enough ratings today and that's because of the audience today and the increase In options.

 

How do you want your news? You can have it with a republican slant on Fox News or delivered with a democratic slant on MSNBC...

 

Both Fox and MSNBC are more entertainment than News these days and I don't see it coming back as long as The National Enquirer stays profitable and Celebrity Ghost Hunters is on the Travel Channel.

 

Whatever you see on Television is on television because that is what people watch. If no one watches it... It goes away fairly quickly.

 

If the theory that Fame is the motivating factor in these type of events is correct. It isn't the media that gives them fame. We all need to look in the mirror... It's you and me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If the theory that Fame is the motivating factor in these type of events is correct. It isn't the media that gives them fame. We all need to look in the mirror... It's you and me.

 

It may be you but it ain't me.

 

I hate hate HATE tabloid journalism. I mean, I despise it to my very core. I do not read about celebrities. I do not read about tabloid court cases (Casey Anthony comes to mind). I won't read about this CT killer. I avoid this kind of thing as much as possible.

 

But you're right, this kind of tabloid news is only broadcast because the people like it. Drive around the Twin Cities and look at the billboards... How many "Dirty Every Thirty Celebrity News" signs do you see? I want to punch the people who watch that kind of **** straight in the face. Not joking. I absolutely loathe this part of American culture. It repulses me.

 

I view it as people who watch this kind of thing admitting that "My life is so inconsequential and boring that I have to feel better about myself by watching someone publicly fall to pieces, which somehow validates my existence... because I suck. I really, really suck as a person."

 

I don't hate much in this life but this is one of those things that I despise on so many levels.

[Riverbrian]

It may be you but it ain't me.

 

I hate hate HATE tabloid journalism. I mean, I despise it to my very core. I do not read about celebrities. I do not read about tabloid court cases (Casey Anthony comes to mind). I won't read about this CT killer. I avoid this kind of thing as much as possible.

 

But you're right, this kind of tabloid news is only broadcast because the people like it. Drive around the Twin Cities and look at the billboards... How many "Dirty Every Thirty Celebrity News" signs do you see? I want to punch the people who watch that kind of **** straight in the face. Not joking. I absolutely loathe this part of American culture. It repulses me.

 

I view it as people who watch this kind of thing admitting that "My life is so inconsequential and boring that I have to feel better about myself by watching someone publicly fall to pieces, which somehow validates my existence... because I suck. I really, really suck as a person."

 

I don't hate much in this life but this is one of those things that I despise on so many levels.

 

I'm with ya... It's why I spend so much time watching Baseball...

 

However, avoiding publicity with this kind of tragedy is flat out impossible. Getting all these news organizations together and getting them to agree to avoid coverage for the greater good of society is impossible because someone isn't going to follow the script. Once one news organization decides to provide background information on the killer... Therefore, bringing him fame like he's the Joker or the Riddler... That news organization will have an advantage over the others because that's who the majority of folks will watch. Once an advantage is identified the others will be right behind because no one wants less viewers. It's why they don't dare leave the story. People want to know who this guy is... how he got to the point of doing this... They want to know when he did it and in what order... They want to know what he said to his mother before pulling the trigger.

 

The old question... Should executions be televised? Guess what... It's not a question of if... It's a question of when.

 

All it will take is one time. Fox News or MSNBC or the Food Network gets a wild idea... Approaches the state of Texas or Wyoming or the Phillipines and works out a deal. The state takes the money and allows the execution to be televised and the Ratings go thru the roof.

 

Once that happens... Other Networks will be competing for the right to broadcast the next one. The money will get larger with competition and pretty soon you have a public event and it will be promoted a week prior "The Beauchamp exection... Tuesday Night at 7PM... Only on AMC...

 

It sounds crazy to think about that... But... don't bet against it. A large portion of Americans would watch an execution.

 

If people watch... The money made from it increases because the competition for the rights will become important for any network that wants to make more money... And if money increases... It will be hard to stop. Anybody protesting such a Barbarian form of entertainment will be shouted down by the dollars and audience level.

 

It's only gonna get worse as the walls are chipped away at... But... We really can't blame the networks. It's what the people want.

[Brock Beauchamp]

No, I don't fault the networks. I fault each individual in power who buckles to pressure and throws their morality to the curb, but mostly, I blame the people who watch this trash. If there was no demand for it, news agencies wouldn't bother.

[TheLeviathan]

You know, it is possible to cover a story without glorifying these monsters or giving them the time of day. I understand people needing closure or a chance to try and rationalize these actions, but what we have isn't deep introspection as a society - we reach for quick fixes and look for easy targets to blame the situation on. These initial, heavily covered aspects of the killer have been VERY wrong in the past (see: Columbine) and are driven by a tasteless lack of ethics.

 

You and me can't give them fame if we aren't given the ammo to do so. You and me can't put their name in the brains of every household. You and I can only control the degree you and I seek out information. The stream of information is controlled by the media, so deflecting blame from that is a ridiculous suggestion. Yes, we help motivate the media to do it, but it's just like the old "jump off a bridge" - just because many will eat it up doesn't mean you need to put it on the table.

 

Also, no one said this causes anyone to do anything. But it is a fact that some of these people have openly stated in their manifestos that notoriety is part of their objectives - why should we give them that? I'm not suggesting that stopping this kind of coverage will stop these actions, I will suggest this kind of wall-to-wall coverage isn't making it LESS appealing. And I will certainly suggest that we should do everything in our power as a community (which should include the media) to not make these actions achieve the meaning the killers intend. It can only inspire others to do the same. Columbine proved that if you want to send your message in a pool of blood - you can and the media won't hesitate to help as long as their ratings get a boost.

[Riverbrian]

You know, it is possible to cover a story without glorifying these monsters or giving them the time of day. I understand people needing closure or a chance to try and rationalize these actions, but what we have isn't deep introspection as a society - we reach for quick fixes and look for easy targets to blame the situation on. These initial, heavily covered aspects of the killer have been VERY wrong in the past (see: Columbine) and are driven by a tasteless lack of ethics.

 

You and me can't give them fame if we aren't given the ammo to do so. You and me can't put their name in the brains of every household. You and I can only control the degree you and I seek out information. The stream of information is controlled by the media, so deflecting blame from that is a ridiculous suggestion. Yes, we help motivate the media to do it, but it's just like the old "jump off a bridge" - just because many will eat it up doesn't mean you need to put it on the table.

 

Also, no one said this causes anyone to do anything. But it is a fact that some of these people have openly stated in their manifestos that notoriety is part of their objectives - why should we give them that? I'm not suggesting that stopping this kind of coverage will stop these actions, I will suggest this kind of wall-to-wall coverage isn't making it LESS appealing. And I will certainly suggest that we should do everything in our power as a community (which should include the media) to not make these actions achieve the meaning the killers intend. It can only inspire others to do the same. Columbine proved that if you want to send your message in a pool of blood - you can and the media won't hesitate to help as long as their ratings get a boost.

 

Agreed... We have the ability(strength in numbers) to change lots of things... However... getting everyone to join hands is very difficult. Everyone hates the College Bowl system... If everyone who wants a playoff would link together... They could stop it... Have the alumni stay home... don't go to El Paso for the Sun Bowl... Dont watch it... The Schools and sponsors would lose money and things could change... If you hate partisan politics and polling seems to suggest that people do... If you want the Democrats and Republicans to work together for the good of us... We could band together and change things... We could vote them out... We have the power and the media is part of the problem. No doubt about that.

 

I dream of media that educates... Not a media that entertains... I am in the minority... I wish I could have in depth news... News that gets down to why its important... Instead I get news that is condensed into tiny segments on important stories and overblown on the sensational issues. I won't get the news I want because not enough people want news the way I do... News isn't even news anymore in my opinion... It's slanted commentary these days and that slanted commentary gets the highest ratings.

 

Expecting the media to take the high road is no different than expecting the Government to take the high road... Or... Wall Street... Major insurance companies... You name it... There is very little incentive to do so... You lose money on the high road... I'm not saying I agree with that... It just is what it is...

 

The media isn't glorifying the monsters who kill. No one is standing in front of the camera and approving... They all say the buzz words that everyone is thinking... senseless... evil...

 

The monster that the media feeds is the public monster and no media is going to walk away from it when the majority is tuning in looking for it. They can't wait for accuracy... They gotta get information and information quick... That means... Hearsay... The days of Cronkite are over... Satellite trucks can be anywhere in a moments notice. Reporters on scene in a jiffy... Audience waiting to find out in an instant... If you wait for accuracy... The audience is gone to one of the many other news operations that provides the hearsay. The Internet is another source to compete with.

 

Who knows why people do this... I don't understand... I don't think I'm capable of such things... It could be the quest for fame... It could pure anger... Mental problems... The NRA... Video games... I don't know... I can only guess... Very few will or can understand something like this.

 

I'm pretty sure that someone somewhere in the FBI or homicide squads across America... The CIA... Professors in College... There are people who have been studying this type of behavior and probably have some great suggestions to curb it... There are informed people in almost every field... however... way too often... the smart Informed people are shouted down by the uninformed people with more power.

[biggentleben]

I will say that I was impressed seeing how the news focus has been different since Friday night. I don't watch a ton of CNN, but in light of this tragedy, I watched Friday night, and roughly 1/3 of the hour I watched was about the shooter. Saturday night, I returned home, and it was still the channel of choice from the previous night, so I watched. I was pleasantly surprised that in the hour+ that I watched, the shooter was not referenced by name once.

[TheLeviathan]

Expecting the media to take the high road is no different than expecting the Government to take the high road... Or... Wall Street... Major insurance companies... You name it... There is very little incentive to do so... You lose money on the high road... I'm not saying I agree with that... It just is what it is...

 

So we give up our expectations and our morals? Because that's what you are suggesting. You can say it isn't realistic, but you began by taking issue with the suggestion that it's wrong to focus on the shooter. Maybe you had another point, but I lost it in the multiple tangents.

[Riverbrian]

Morality was given up a long time ago... The Churches are filled with folks who talk of morality and still act immoral because Bob's morality is different than Tom's.

 

I'm not saying its wrong to ignore the shooter. I wish we could... I took issue with the blaming of the media. The media is what we (not you, Brock or I) the people created.

 

How is it supposed to work? CNN decides to downplay the shooter for the good of society. Who's gonna notice... Are you? Me? The average viewer? CNN would have to run promos afterwards... "CNN... We didnt mention his name during our Sandy Hook coverage" just to get anyone to know they didn't mention his name.

 

Meanwhile... The viewers who didn't notice that CNN was staying away from adding to the killers legend. Those same viewers flip channels for information and there is MSNBC and Fox News with his picture and life story. And they watch MSNBC or Fox... Because they can get their arms around a picture and life story.

 

Game over CNN loses and gains nothing for the loss because no one noticed anyway. MSNBC and Fox has a bigger audience... Charges more from advertisers... Make more money and they laugh at CNN because they have more viewers. As time goes by... If CNN doesn't change to what the people want... They go away all together or new directors are brought in to improve ratings and the directors say "what the hell were you thinking... Not talking about the killers".

 

I understand that you are suggesting social responsibility for the media and I hole heartedly support your suggestion because I'd like that as well. However... They are a business. You have a long road to go if you expect the Media to be different than the Government or Wall Street.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not saying its wrong to ignore the shooter. I wish we could... I took issue with the blaming of the media. The media is what we (not you, Brock or I) the people created.

 

You may be making a chicken and egg point. One could argue that had ethics never been tossed aside, they would've never known it sparks more ratings. You seem to imply that we salivate and the media gives us what we want. I'd argue, the media tells us what to salivate for and we do.

 

I also expect fair play and honesty in government and anywhere else. Free market isn't the Old West, there are still rules or it doesn't work. Part of the problem with journalism today is that they've thrown out the rule book. Anything to make the public salivate and I find that wrong. I understand it may be impossible to ever see that change, but I hope it can. I firmly believe the notoriety we give these monsters only adds to the chances of seeing another.

[Riverbrian]

"Had ethics never been tossed aside they would've never known it sparks more ratings".

 

Of course. Thats obvious...

 

Someone came along and changed the news game and won that way... And the copycats follow... just like the success of the movie "Big" led to "18 again" and a whole bunch of "Big" like movies.

 

They have thrown out the rule book and its sad. I guess the question is... Do you think News is a business or a responsibility?

 

Id like it to be a responsibility but the people who own it... They think its a business and the success of the business is dependent on the wishes of the people.

[TheLeviathan]

You are demonstrating a very classic fallacy. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be.

[Willihammer]

Is there evidence that the media's coverage of these events is encouragement to subsequent slayings?