![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
akujunkanI am so utterly disgusted with the news media right now, I could vomit.
Specifically, all the rabid finger pointing about the Virginia Tech administration "not having done enough."
It sure makes a nice soundbite. But it's ridiculous and it needs to stop.
Case in point: I watched a news anchor (I believe on CNN) interviewing a survivor last night. The interview went like this:
Anchor: Are you angry at the school administration for not having done enough?
Survivor: No, I don't know what they could have done. I just feel for the families and everyone who went through this.
Anchor: But aren't you angry that this horrible tragedy could have been prevented if only more had been done?
Survivor: I don't see how anyone could have done that. I just wish it had never happened.
Anchor: But don't you think lives could have been saved if only more had been done? Doesn't it just make you furious that the administration stood by with a crazed gunman on the loose?
Survivor: I--no, look. There are thousands of people here coming and going all the time, how could they--
Anchor: But don't you just--
And so on, until the poor guy finally said that yes, he was angry, just to get her off of his back.
It isn't limited to that one exchange, either. All the news media are spewing variations on that soundbite.
Why? The answer is simple: Self-righteous outrage makes for much better copy than sadness. Comfort and healing don't exactly keep viewers glued to their sets with a rivetingly vicarious viewing experience. Admitting that yesterday's atrocity could not, in all likelihood, have been either anticipated or prevented doesn't offer anyone the chance to have a self-congratulatory experience of judgmental superiority.
These anchors, reporters, pundits, and journalists need to stop it with the "advanced warning systems" "anger" "could have done more" bullshit, now. The truth is, nothing more could have been done.
But they could have--
What? Shut down the campus? Twenty-six thousand students spread across acres of grounds, not to mention thousands of university staff, all arriving and leaving at all hours of the day and night? How on earth could anyone shut that down?
"Well, there was a murder!" the media exclaims in wide-eyed, calculated disbelief.
Okay. So the campus should have been shut down. But if you accept that premise, then you had better damn well be willing to accept it in all comparable situations--including your own life. How would those self-same photogenically outraged journalists react if their apartment were to be shut down every time a murder was commited nearby? Their sub division? Their entire neighborhood and the surrounding environs encompassing 30,000-odd people?
Not with patient understanding, I'm willing to bet.
The same goes for the other ludicrous "solutions" like air raid sirens.
Air raid sirens. You've got to be kidding me.
Who do you know who pays attention when a car alarm goes off? How many students really believe their dormitory or classroom is actually on fire every time the fire alarm goes off?
Let's not forget that multiple bomb threats had been called into the V-Tech campus before the killings. What if a siren had gone off after each of those threats had been called in? Would anyone have paid attention when it went off the third time for the real emergency? Not likely.
And even more to the point: Let's assume the school did have an advanced warning alarm system capable of alerting the campus that something was wrong. So what? How would that have kept anyone safe? Is anybody seriously trying to suggest that a mob of 30,000+ panicked students and staff stampeding down hallways and clogging the roads with their vehicles would have been any safer during yesterday's shootings than a student and faculty body unaware of what was taking place across the street, or across the commons, or across the campus?
Think about it. The reactionary, self-righteous "Why didn't you just..." back patting needs to stop.
That will be all.
Specifically, all the rabid finger pointing about the Virginia Tech administration "not having done enough."
It sure makes a nice soundbite. But it's ridiculous and it needs to stop.
Case in point: I watched a news anchor (I believe on CNN) interviewing a survivor last night. The interview went like this:
Anchor: Are you angry at the school administration for not having done enough?
Survivor: No, I don't know what they could have done. I just feel for the families and everyone who went through this.
Anchor: But aren't you angry that this horrible tragedy could have been prevented if only more had been done?
Survivor: I don't see how anyone could have done that. I just wish it had never happened.
Anchor: But don't you think lives could have been saved if only more had been done? Doesn't it just make you furious that the administration stood by with a crazed gunman on the loose?
Survivor: I--no, look. There are thousands of people here coming and going all the time, how could they--
Anchor: But don't you just--
And so on, until the poor guy finally said that yes, he was angry, just to get her off of his back.
It isn't limited to that one exchange, either. All the news media are spewing variations on that soundbite.
Why? The answer is simple: Self-righteous outrage makes for much better copy than sadness. Comfort and healing don't exactly keep viewers glued to their sets with a rivetingly vicarious viewing experience. Admitting that yesterday's atrocity could not, in all likelihood, have been either anticipated or prevented doesn't offer anyone the chance to have a self-congratulatory experience of judgmental superiority.
These anchors, reporters, pundits, and journalists need to stop it with the "advanced warning systems" "anger" "could have done more" bullshit, now. The truth is, nothing more could have been done.
But they could have--
What? Shut down the campus? Twenty-six thousand students spread across acres of grounds, not to mention thousands of university staff, all arriving and leaving at all hours of the day and night? How on earth could anyone shut that down?
"Well, there was a murder!" the media exclaims in wide-eyed, calculated disbelief.
Okay. So the campus should have been shut down. But if you accept that premise, then you had better damn well be willing to accept it in all comparable situations--including your own life. How would those self-same photogenically outraged journalists react if their apartment were to be shut down every time a murder was commited nearby? Their sub division? Their entire neighborhood and the surrounding environs encompassing 30,000-odd people?
Not with patient understanding, I'm willing to bet.
The same goes for the other ludicrous "solutions" like air raid sirens.
Air raid sirens. You've got to be kidding me.
Who do you know who pays attention when a car alarm goes off? How many students really believe their dormitory or classroom is actually on fire every time the fire alarm goes off?
Let's not forget that multiple bomb threats had been called into the V-Tech campus before the killings. What if a siren had gone off after each of those threats had been called in? Would anyone have paid attention when it went off the third time for the real emergency? Not likely.
And even more to the point: Let's assume the school did have an advanced warning alarm system capable of alerting the campus that something was wrong. So what? How would that have kept anyone safe? Is anybody seriously trying to suggest that a mob of 30,000+ panicked students and staff stampeding down hallways and clogging the roads with their vehicles would have been any safer during yesterday's shootings than a student and faculty body unaware of what was taking place across the street, or across the commons, or across the campus?
Think about it. The reactionary, self-righteous "Why didn't you just..." back patting needs to stop.
That will be all.