In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon terror bombings, I've stopped watching the news altogether. I've tired of changing the channel every time the bombers' photos are plastered on the screen followed by the graphic video of their dastardly deeds--precisely as intended. I no longer bother to simply change the channel every time the faces appear on screen or the video is replayed accompanied attempts to explain, excuse or simply replay the painful scenes for the benefit of a voyeuristic public. I'll return to watching the evening news when sanity returns, if it ever does.
I can't stand the media's penchant for glorifying terrorists and
other common criminals by endlessly plastering their photos on
TV/newspapers/magazines/online, thus effectively feeding the egos and
encouraging further heinous acts from every loser and evil moron all
over the planet who wants to push an agenda or take the express lane to
hell in a blaze of infamy. Do we need to see those still incredibly
painful images from 9/11 any time someone utters the word "terror" on
television? Do we need to see the stock footage of the 9/11 murderers
along with those images as commentators remind us of their dastardly
acts? Do we need to see the face of the surviving Boston terror suspect
and hear his mother rail against the FBI over and over again?
I
know that bad news sells newspapers and gathers eyeballs for news
programs. But give me a break. Every pimply faced loser with delusions
of adequacy can find instant celebrity by going to the mall and blowing
up people--whether out of some misguided belief system or just for fun.
(Here's a clue, Sherlock: God does not tell people to kill women with
long hair speaking through a dog and does not want you to go out and
murder the innocent of any faith/color/sex/sexual orientation. The devil
does. Get that through your thick, troglodyte's skull. There is no
devil you say? Perhaps you're right, but look in the mirror for a rough
approximation. If you had an I.Q. above that of salt, of course, you'd
know that.)
The media needs to tone down the coverage. The Roman
idea of pacifying the masses by offering bread and
circus (the arena) is
not something we want to emulate, but have. (Welfare and the
gore-on-demand round the clock coverage of CNN/FOX/MSNBC. Everybody
happy as the empire fall around us and the barbarians storm the gates?
We don't even have Hadrian's wall to offer even the appearance of
safety.
Monday, April 29, 2013
A modest proposal for denying terrorists the publicity they seek
In a society where the most dysfunctional behavior and/or sheer
nastiness can get people (or entire families) reality shows and
"celebrity status," if the channel is changed to avoid the constant
images of terrorists and suspected terrorists and their evil deeds, it
is likely to be to look for a better angle--a close-up of the blood and
gore, preferably in HD and slow-motion. The media panders to the lowest
common denominator and, in turn, helps to bring the bar of what passes
for news reporting ever lower. There is no sense of propriety, of
editorial restraint, or of simple common decency evident in news
reporting of tragedies.
Satiating the voyeuristic taste of the viewing public is not a journalist's reason for being. Nor is desensitizing the masses from the horrific acts of misguided, demented, or evil people. Showing a burning building is news. Showing people throwing themselves from the rooftop in act of desperation driven by the simple desire to avoid burning to death is unnecessary and cruel. Following the bodies down with a camera until they hit the ground and the aftereffects in glorious 3D would be inexcusable (but such video would be shown were it available with an appropriate disclaimer that viewer discretion is advised). Continually showing the faces of the men responsible for the act for more than a decade at the drop of a hat is free advertising for terror groups, promotes terrorism, and is criminal behavior masquerading as news and hiding behind the 1st Amendment protection.
I have a suggestion for dealing with terrorists and other crazies on the media loosely borrowed from an old science fiction short story whose name and author I simply cannot remember at the moment (please feel free to chime in if you do).
Rather than show us the faces of terrorists and endless footage of the carnage they wreak on the innocent repeatedly, endlessly, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, providing them and their "causes" with free publicity that money can't buy and encouraging an endless stream of like-minded wingnuts to blaze their own trails to hell for the amusement of a voyeuristic public, I'd like to propose a caricature be developed that places terrorists in an appropriate context--say, a skinny, mangy, rabid dog foaming at the mouth. Whenever an act of terror is perpetrated, place ONLY this image on the screen along with whatever description of the act and brief video clip is relevant. Any time thereafter when a terror suspect or convicted/dead terrorist is named, put their name under the mangy, rabid dog as a stand-in for their picture. Use as many mangy, rabid dogs as needed to represent any number of these morons. We can even differentiate domestic and foreign terrorists by using, say, a mangy, rabid dog for a domestic terrorist and a mangy rabid jackal for a foreign terrorist (or hyena, or some other unattractive lesser animal--I'm nothing if not flexible).
I might even watch an entire newscast again if these standards were adopted without an aching thumb from changing channels on my remote any time a glorified punk is shown on TV again, again, again and yet AGAIN.
Satiating the voyeuristic taste of the viewing public is not a journalist's reason for being. Nor is desensitizing the masses from the horrific acts of misguided, demented, or evil people. Showing a burning building is news. Showing people throwing themselves from the rooftop in act of desperation driven by the simple desire to avoid burning to death is unnecessary and cruel. Following the bodies down with a camera until they hit the ground and the aftereffects in glorious 3D would be inexcusable (but such video would be shown were it available with an appropriate disclaimer that viewer discretion is advised). Continually showing the faces of the men responsible for the act for more than a decade at the drop of a hat is free advertising for terror groups, promotes terrorism, and is criminal behavior masquerading as news and hiding behind the 1st Amendment protection.
I have a suggestion for dealing with terrorists and other crazies on the media loosely borrowed from an old science fiction short story whose name and author I simply cannot remember at the moment (please feel free to chime in if you do).
Rather than show us the faces of terrorists and endless footage of the carnage they wreak on the innocent repeatedly, endlessly, ad nauseam, ad infinitum, providing them and their "causes" with free publicity that money can't buy and encouraging an endless stream of like-minded wingnuts to blaze their own trails to hell for the amusement of a voyeuristic public, I'd like to propose a caricature be developed that places terrorists in an appropriate context--say, a skinny, mangy, rabid dog foaming at the mouth. Whenever an act of terror is perpetrated, place ONLY this image on the screen along with whatever description of the act and brief video clip is relevant. Any time thereafter when a terror suspect or convicted/dead terrorist is named, put their name under the mangy, rabid dog as a stand-in for their picture. Use as many mangy, rabid dogs as needed to represent any number of these morons. We can even differentiate domestic and foreign terrorists by using, say, a mangy, rabid dog for a domestic terrorist and a mangy rabid jackal for a foreign terrorist (or hyena, or some other unattractive lesser animal--I'm nothing if not flexible).
I might even watch an entire newscast again if these standards were adopted without an aching thumb from changing channels on my remote any time a glorified punk is shown on TV again, again, again and yet AGAIN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)