The little ones sit by their tv screen, no thoughts to think, no tears to cry, all sucked dry, down to the very last breath

I actually surprised my wife with this one: the Virginia Tech gunman mailed a series of photos and videotapes to NBS news, so should they, and other news agencies, have shown excerpts on their nightly newscasts/websites, etc.? It's easy to suggest no. The killer was already dead by his own hand, and this gives him a posthumous gift of the recognition he wanted, and could in theory motivate others to similar action. Oddly enough, I find this argument wholly unconvincing. Don't get me wrong, after a traumatic experience it can be brutal seeing repeated images of the killer...but that really is a phenomenon over which has some control. Turn off the TV, avoid the newspaper for a couple days, and stop watching Cable news entirely (actually, that last bit of advice applies for everyone, frankly, regardless of the situation). What worries me, among others, is the media declaring a blackout on things that are on their face newsworthy, to prevent us from having our sensibilities challenged. See the arguments by Atrios:

I'm a bit puzzled by all the conversation about whether NBC and other news outlets should've broadcast Cho's videos. While there can always be debates about what should be front and center, the idea that this kind of thing should be withheld by a Media That Knows Best is rather disturbing. Emphasis and placement is always an issue, which is why if nothing else this stuff can be put on the internets where people can make the effort to take a peek if they wish.

And, no, I didn't have much desire to see any of it, I just reject the idea that our Elite Filters really know what's best for us.

and Kevin Drum:

There's no question that these images and videos are intense; they undoubtedly cause pain to the loved ones of the victims; and they might even help promote copycat behavior — though I suspect this is more urban legend than reality. But like it or not, they're also a key part of helping us understand one of the biggest news stories of the year.

I think this is exactly right. When the media acts like gatekeepers, we are shielded from violent images at the true cost of not understanding their context at all. I would argue that the lack of bloodshed from Iraq shown on tv has led us to ignore the deaths of several hundred thousand innocent civilians, since we never see the true picture of all the suicide bombings and executions that plague that country. We don't even see the true effect on our military, since the media is banned from showing soldiers' coffins and they have dropped the ball utterly on the effects of serious injuries on the troops. Until the recent expose of Walter Reed by the Washington Post, the media was basically happy to pretend that these things just didn't deserve widespread attention, even though Salon pointed out many of these issues years ago.

That said, some discretion is called for. Rather than pimping the Cho videos endlessly, it was probably appropriate to show brief snippets and post the remainder to websites, but in the end, it is up to us to decide what we wish to watch and what we would prefer to avoid, not up to them to censor the news for the sake of the most sensitive individuals.

By the way, what of the argument that we are just provoking copycats? More from Kevin Drum at Political Animal:

Still, does publicizing specific mass murders inspire copycats? I'm not so sure about that. In fact, it might be just the opposite: the massive publicity these events generate makes everybody far more vigilant about the possibility of "disturbed loners" in their midst and might actually reduce the likelihood of copycat sprees. What's more, when all is said and done, most of these killers come across in media accounts as delusional, hopeless losers, not as heroes to emulate.

What we all need to remember is that no matter how brutal this killing was, random killing sprees, including those at schools, are extremely rare. There is not some "wave of killings" taking place at schools, just like there is no wave of kidnapped children, or any of the million other problems blown up to ridiculous proportions by the various news outlets. What there is, rather is much more hyperventilating news sources to which we have access, who are willing to make random isolated events into trends so that we may be scared into watching their programs. VT was a true American tragedy, but also a rare and reasonably random occurrence. Some perspective goes a long way into fitting it into a reasonable narrative, and that requires both access to details about the case, as only the news can provide, but also a reasonable approach, which we can rest assured they most definitely won't provide.

PS: It seems that Rosa Brooks of the LA Times feels similar to me about assuming the tragedies and trauma of others, in that it is overdone in modern society:

Convincing ourselves that we've been vicariously traumatized by the pain of strangers has become a cherished national pastime. Thus, the Washington Post this week accompanied online stories about the shooting with a clickable sidebar, "Where to Find Support" — apparently on the assumption that the mere experience of glancing at articles about the tragedy would be so emotionally devastating that readers would require trained therapists...

Our self-indulgent conviction that we have all been traumatized also operates, ironically, to shut down empathy for other, less media-genic victims. On the day of the Virginia Tech shooting, for instance, Army Sgt. Mario K. De Leon of San Francisco (like the Virginia Tech victims) died of "wounds sustained from enemy small-arms fire"). On Wednesday, car bombs killed at least 172 people in Baghdad. But no one has set up a special MySpace page to commemorate those dead.

One more untitled thought

Just to follow up on my esteemed colleague's post, I thought I might also take the time to let loose on the media, though I'll note that the more reputable sources (NYTimes, WashPost, NPR) have done a pretty good job. I refuse utterly to watch the cable news coverage, so I can't comment on them in particular.

Still, I can only imagine how many times, as dkon mentioned, some poor student still clearly in shock has been asked, "How do you feel". Let's just all concede for the moment that within 24 hours of such an event, if not much longer afterwards, the answer is some strange combination of too many things to describe and nothing at all. The human brain is not meant to deal rationally with these kinds of things. They put us into shock, which is a real condition, not just some kind of metaphor. I seem to remember that when many Simon's Rockers were asked inane questions by the media, they realized that by inserting a few choice four letter words in the midst of otherwise cogent thoughts, they could piss the hell out of annoying TV reporters. I personally didn't act so mean to them, but in my defense, I was stoned on Percocet at the time.

Someday, I'd like to ask reporters why they ask people how they feel after virtually all events, both positive and negative, when such a question is fundamentally unanswerable. I've got a theory, of course. Whatever gets answered, it feeds into our sense of vicarious experience, which many in the media will mistakenly label "empathy". We wish to know how victims feel so that we may imagine ourselves in their place, as noble victims, just like we can imagine ourselves as Super Bowl winners, hurricane victims, children waiting for loved ones to come home from war, etc. It's pure, simple, utterly vapid vicariousness. We never actually feel what the interviewee actually feels, nor could we. Feelings are fundamentally intangible, no matter how carefully we describe them. For all the inanity, I understand why people want to empathize with people celebrating...it's kind of obvious. Vicarious victimhood scares me, though. People love to assume the role of victim. The Christian right talks about being persecuted in America, ignoring the fact that they basically run the show at the moment. Lou Dobbs, a very wealthy man, bashes immigrants every night on behalf of the poor American worker. Let's not get started on how many of society's ills are blamed on the gays (or minorities, or immigrants, or looking further back, Jews, women, Irish, Italians, Catholics, etc.). Playing the victim is a sickness in American society; having not really suffered squat (being average in America puts a human being at the pinnacle of the species' frickin existence on the planet so far), we need to assume others' tragedies in order to assuage our survivor's guilt, or in this case, our guilt with regard to luck of our birth. I am always struck by the obsession America has for the holocaust, not within the Jewish community but outside it as well. Honestly, it's not done to keep the memory alive, it often just means that we need a godawful big tragedy on which to project ourselves, and that one is the clearest. Frankly, anyone who bemoans the situation of the German Jews and then bashes any minority or ethnic group...well, hypocrisy just doesn't describe it.

Today's media obscenities were produced by a couple of Right wing bloggers who do humanitiy's reputation a great deal of harm. John Derbyshire of National Review (h/t Ana Marie Cox):

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

and Nathanael Blake of Human Events Online (h/t ThinkProgress):

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …

Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.

It never ceases to amaze how the pro-war right, having gotten us into a war for which they have literally made no sacrifice whatsoever, instantly project themselves into the role of the heroes they idolize but have already proven they could never emulate. Honestly, in a shooting, people go on pure instinct, there's not a rational thought in sight. Perhaps if either of these wastes of phosphorus had some actual law enforcement or military training, they might be able to react like they so fervently believe they would in their Dirty Harry-esque wet dreams...but they fight evil using their keyboards, bashing those of us who often suggest that just because our soldiers are courageous doesn't mean they need to be sacrificed to our quixotic national nightmare. Here, rather than take on the role of victim, they actually project themselves into heroism, and woe unto the rest of us mortals who fall short of their delusional estimates of their own self-worth. Honestly, when you haven't done jack shit, the least you can do is shut the hell up when talking about a group of students who just faced the most horrible event of their lives. It's just utterly reprehensible.

In closing, here's a tip for both our media and our chickenhawk critics: try asking "Is there anything you'd like to say?", or even better yet, "What would you like people to do in response to this?" You see, rather than being badgered or accused of cowardice in the face of a threat only a chickenhawk blogger could hope to overcome, you could always allow the traumatized students to express themselves in their own words or describe how we can help them. In the end, this is actually better than allowing them to help us by allowing us to suffer without pain or consequences...I just don't see it ever happening.

words fail

There's not much to add to Dr. Faber's post below about the massacre at Virginia Tech. In these situations the words mostly distort and cheapen and inflate and trivialize. That's why I remember such a visceral distaste for the media circus after the comparatively minor massacre at Simon's Rock. And that's why it seems grating to me today, like in the only "news" clip I saw on the internets today. Why is the first question to a wounded student, "how do you feel?" How do you think he feels, idiot?

I'm all for reporting the news and finding facts, but do you need any extra emotion for this story? Why are we so fascinated by other people's misery? Do we not get enough on our own, or does it make us feel better by comparison? And yet, after sucking down the last morsel of impertinent information, and learning about the perp's best friend's favorite bands, we promptly forget and do absolutely nothing until the next massacre.

We all suck.

No title tonight

Well, we're back from Aruba, and the real world seems to be butting in on what was supposed to be a lighthearted vacation recap. I already had a tribute piece to Kurt Vonnegut planned, but that will happen later in the week. First, a few words on an actual real news story, unlike Imus, which was an utterly vapid piece of navel-gazing by the American news media in which any interesting aspects of the story were pushed aside for empty theatrics.

The shootings at Virginia Tech are utterly horrific, needless to say, ranking not only as one of the worst such incidents in US School shooting history, but the worst spree killing in US history, period, and possibly the third-largest in recorded history. Over the next couple days, the ratio of information to misinformation will gradually rise from the current 1:10 ratio to something approaching 1:1 or so, and as details become clear, they will almost certainly be horrible. As I was discussing tonight with alexm, when these things get so large in scope it necessarily implies that a lot if things went wrong; when the police and campus security respond correctly, the casualties by definition will be significantly fewer. What happened here is likely to be the same story as with the Simon's Rock shooting 15 years ago: the authorities failed to act in time, because they were put in a nearly impossible position and reacted badly, as people do. Put a group of people under immense and unexpected pressure, and they will frequently not do such a fantastic job. We're human, and we're imperfect, and extreme acts can bring out the worst in us just as they can bring out the best.

It's hard not to bring up the gun control issue at a time like this. Needless to say, I am a strong gun control supporter. We happen to live in a society that is a bit too comfortable with random acts of violence (see our media, romance for war, even the casual cruelty with which hunting is accepted), and our romance of the firearm is part and parcel of this. Many conservatives out there (see Lawyers, Guns, and Money for some links to reprehensible examples) seem to think that had students been allowed to pack heat, this could have been stopped. First of all, who carries to German class? Second, imagine encouraging acts of vigilantism in tense situations by students completely untrained in crisis situations: they are as likely to shoot the hostages as they are the gunman/gunmen, to say nothing of the fact that the police will have a fun time figuring out who is who. Third, and most importantly, COLLEGE STUDENTS DRINK TOO MUCH AND MANY ARE CLINICALLY DEPRESSED!!! This is not a good mix with widespread firearms. Think of how many fights occur at college bars, and now add heavy weaponry. Think of how many students are distraught over bad breakups, wondering if they should confront the person who replaced them, and add the capacity to commit homicide. Let's face it, college students are not a particularly trustworthy lot, and it's best to pacify the crazier part of the population, not arm it.

In the end, many people will ask why these things happen. Here is a list of the reasons as best I've been able to figure out from being on the barrel side of the gun, rather than the trigger side:

1. There is no reason. These things happen. A small percentage of the population can be driven to homicidal behavior, and accessing deadly weaponry is not particularly difficult.
2. God moves in mysterious ways. Honestly, I find this explanation to be a complete crock, but if it works for you, so be it.
3. College students are a bit emotionally unstable by nature, because adolescent brains do not possess the full suite of behavior control techniques. Moreover, there is a significant percentage of people who are either clinically depressed or on strong psychotropic drugs that can cause violent behavior. More moreover, college is a disruptive time in life where you are displaced from family, and it is not so hard to become isolated. These all combine to make it inevitable that students will flip out every so often, though we really never know where, when, or how many will suffer as a result.

So, I hear you saying, what can we do? Honestly, not much in the short term. In the long-term, try not to be such violent bastards, basically.

If anyone is interested, I've posted a scanned version of my one published poem, which was written about the Simon's Rock shooting, on my website as two image files. You can find the first half here and second half here. Warning: contains strong language and graphic imagery, as one might expect.

On a happier note, I've posted our pictures from Aruba to my flickr account. More on that tomorrow. Also, Alexis, check the comments to dkon's piece for the song about which you asked.

More tomorrow, kids.