Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Massacre in Omaha

0 helpful
26 replies

by tig2

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3973102&page=1

By now, you have heard about the tragic shooting in an Omaha shopping mall. The gunman killed 8 and then took his own life in an act so senseless that I have difficulty even thinking about it.

By now, we know much more about the perpetrator. And in some respects, it seems to me that we have stopped talking about the issues that pushed this person to commit these acts or the act itself and are immersing ourselves in the "dirty laundry" aspects. More sensationalism of something that should NEVER be sensationalised.

What in the world are we doing to ourselves from a societal viewpoint by continuing to go for the sensational and not call out a few points? I want someone to stand up and say, "It's not nice to murder people!" "This is wrong and we aren't going to tolerate it". Anything! But what we get are the endless reports that have now provided me with enough information to write the kid's biography. Evidently, no one gave him enough information to know that this would not be a good thing.

I am Christian enough that my first reaction is to pray- not only for the victims, but the perpetrator. Whether you agree with that or not is really none of my business. But I am human enough to ask myself WHY massacre murder is becoming a trend?

In the kid's sick mind, this was his best path to fame. Why to we foster that kind of thinking by sensationalising tragedy?

I don't get it.

26 replies

by hal 9000

No I don't agree with it either but unfortunately it's a fact of life. The Media is only interested in increasing Income from what they pass off as the NEWS.

Personally I'm sick & tired at what passes for News in the Main Stream Media so I'm boycotting it and advising everyone that I know to do the same.

Col

by michael jay

nor will it be the last, why people fly off the loose end and kill people will probably never be understood.

I only wish that if they have such problems that they would cut out the crap and just kill themselves, no need to involve so many other lives.

Each person that was killed had many that loved them, for sure a mother and father, a lover, a friend, people that cared about them and now they are lost. And I am lost as to how to prevent such crazyness if that is even a word.

I really do not believe that there is any way to stop this kind of madness because people just have issues that they cannot resolve other than to take it out on others..

It truly breaks my heart that these things happen, does anyone have any answer..

You could ban guns..
that has been tried and does not work
because guns are easy to get.

I only wish that we could get better people, people who care, people who love. No more.. Please no more senseless killing..

May be just a dream, a dream I want to come true..

by nicknielsen

I firmly believe the perpetrator should not be identified by name, but should be described as the "murderer," "killer," "perpetrator," "sicko," "wacko," or other words that will describe his role, but not identify him.

Generally, one justification the people who do this kind of thing use is the "fame" they receive in posthumous name recognition. Stop mentioning the name, there's no fame, eliminating one possible reason for doing this kind of sick thing. Will it work? I have no idea, but I find it interesting that the frequency of this type of tragedy appears to have increased with the number of "news" channels and the amount of coverage each incident receives.

by jaqui

abc won't let me see the story, because I'm in Canada.
go figure, I could watch the live broadcast of it, on ABC on local cable service, but I can't see exactly the same video footage on their website.

by dadspad

The media is pretty much covered why they are to blame. The media will do this kind of coverage as long as people watch it and they can base revenue on it. I am with Col on this, I just don't watch it.

The other is with parents and other adults not recognizing mental problems with these kids. I see a lot of parents whose children can do no wrong. I believe others are just blind that their little kid could be disturbed, even thought the signs are there.

I would like both of these problem solved. I hate to lose any life. I think suicide is such a waste of life (under most circumstances).

by absolutely

They also believe that all computer criminals are called "hackers." Like the mass-murderer, they write for notoriety, not for the sake of communicating any ideas important enough to be worth communicating, without the notoriety.

by deepsand

Which is cause, and which effect?

I submit that it is not man's propensity to kill that is waxing, but rather that of the "press" to give undue cover to such.

Marshall McClune recognized that some 43 years ago.

by jamesrl

Journalism is bound by the same freemarket principles that any other capitalist enterprise is - they seek to fill a market need.

If journalism is becoming more sensationalistic, don't blame the journalists, they produce what they are paid to produce. They produce what we consumers want.

If people stopped watching the sensational and started watching the "intellectual" in depth news, then the advertisers would follow.

James

by absolutely

[i]If people stopped watching the sensational and started watching the "intellectual" in depth news, then the advertisers would follow.[/i]

I think monopolies, oligopolies, etc., whether natural or coercive, once in existence, tend to have some ability to shield themselves from the effort of providing what the market actually wants, by preventing new competitors on their "turf."

by jamesrl

Yes the mainstream tends to be concentrated.

But the barriers to entry in things like radio and print and now internet journalism are not that high. Look at Drudge for example.

And no matter how concentrated, media are paid by the number of people who view their stuff. If they get fewer viewers/circulation, they can't charge as much for commercials/ad space. Its a very clear market force.

Blame the people putting out the dreck if you want, but if no one watched it, the execs would kill it, since it would cost them money.

James

by absolutely

How many local newspapers or television
stations are there in your market? 'Economy
of scale' regulations in and of themselves
tend to discourage new competitors, and
thereby to lessen the degree of
competition, wherever such regulations are
in effect. I'm not saying there is no
competition, and the ease of publishing on
the Internet certainly helps, but that
alone does not constitute the theoretical
ideal of completely open Macroeconomics
101-style competition.

by jamesrl

TV stations; 3 Major network stations, 3 independants.
Radio - more than I can count
Newspapers - 3 majors

In Canada we have anti-concentration laws, but everyone complains then that the laws are too restrictive.

James

by deepsand

its [i]causes[/i].

That such market concentration owes, in this case, to a sufficient demand for an inferior product does not serve for its escaping notice of its deleterious effects.

by hal 9000

Another Dyslexic Keyboard. :D

Pity that M$ never makes drivers that actually work properly and not turn out as faulty isn't it? :^0

Col ]:)

by nicknielsen

It's easier on the ego than admitting that the equipment is doing exactly what you tell it to do and not what you want it to do. :^0

by absolutely

deepsand: [i]Ever since I spilled coffee on my keyboard it's been ill-behaved.[/i]

Whether a variant of the fat-finger error or a klutzy elbow is uncertain, but that is definitely not the correct place to pour coffee.

:D

by deepsand

Is the failure of a light fixture, at time of activation, an error, an accident, or neither?

And, what of the ensuing consequences?

This discussion is closed to new replies.