TheLeviathan

I don't understand your confusion. My criticism of the media isn't political. The guns, video games, mental health angles are all often political. I despise these tragedies being used to soapbox politically. My soapbox about the media is apolitical. It's about moral and ethical decency about the victims and the glorification of killers.

Again, that was never suggested. I don't purport to know why this individual did it. If anything, I'd suggest we'll never know. I'm only suggesting it's wrong that we spend more time making a killer infamous than we do celebrating life.

Is it? You're making an assumption that are appetites are purely our own. Behavioral psychology and many other fields would argue that often what we want is told to us, not driven by us. What constitutes "proof"? Other prior school killers have cited Columbine killers as inspiration. Not only is it counter-intuitive that fame would be a non-factor, it has been cited by subsequent killers as motivation. No one is suggesting it is the sole factor, but I do believe it contributes. I will make the argument that the focus on the killer and not the victims is morally wrong.

What sort of "evidence" could there possibly be? Even when one of these people live it's hard to take anything they say seriously. So no, there is no evidence either way, but I have trouble believing that infamy is a discouragement. At the very least, the infamy we give is a slap in the face of their victims whom generally die in obscurity while their killer is known forever. That's more than enough reason for me oppose the coverage.

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

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.

Right, that's my point too. It's not that signing Marcum is a great thing, but it's a better use of 15M than what we saw. It appears the Twins went into the offseason prizing depth over talent when they needed to do the opposite. Again though, that has been JR's track record as a GM. Many were expecting something from him that has not been part of his style at any point in his tenure. And contrary to popular belief, this isn't the first time they've had money available to spend.

Yup, for all the talk and hope of JR being different with money available hasn't been the case so far. Good bargain signings last year, but still no interest in making significant moves. It's what was forseeable based on the team's history sadly.

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.

This is fine, prefer the 1 year deal. But Baker at 5.5M > Pelfry at 4M. Just my opinion.

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.

I think we should add sparkles too. Just go all-in.

Did David Kahn infiltrate the Twins too?

Yeah, the roleplayers look like the kind you find on a really good basketball team - diverse, lots of machup problems, gutty, versatile. Now if they can just keep all their big guns on the floor.

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

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.

And with good reason. But that doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow for many.

Bah....numbers are for whipper-snappers! That said, I'm sticking with my Terry Ryan March interview saying the Twins weren't "comfortable" with some of the prices out there. It's coming folks, start preparing.

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.

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.

I guess I'm afraid for what they'll strike next.

This is bitterness at Kahn slipping out, at least that's my read. Most of what he said is stupid, but understandable. I guess that's how I see it.

Couple more of these and there will be a thread in honor of every position Punto can play.

I think Seth's point about trade-ability is the key. That's why this isn't attractive.

I dig Bourjos a lot. Try Duensing.....(that is both tongue in cheek and half-serious, I think veteran bullpen is what they want)