The breathless media questioning frenzy to discover why the mentally ill man killed 32 people stops me cold.
What made him so angry? What happened that day? Why did he pick the buildings he did?
Just what part of “schizophrenic” don’t reporters understand?
Part of asking why after such an event is to hopefully ensure it never happens again. But in this case it’s mostly a part of the rhetorical why that doesn’t seek an answer. Much like a boat sinking with 1500 souls aboard. We know why, we want to know “why”. Why did the house catch fire and kill 5 children. We know why……but “why”?
Being a member of, and a great advocate for, the Mentally disabled, I can only say that people don’t want to face it. It’s too difficult, too easy to turn away from and ignore. Then they act all surprised when something like this happens. The biggest problem here is that NOBODY LEARNS. Tomorrow some other student could do the same thing and we’d all be scratching our heads like dumb asses wondering “why” again.
Large schools like that are not good places for anyone with a mental disability. Having gone to a huge university myself, I can attest that it’s all to easy to get lost and overlooked. Living in a 12 story dorm room with hundreds of party happy boys, who’s going to look at the introverted kid in the corner who’s having a rough time? Nobody. It’s also unfortunate that many such disabilities, especially schizophrenia, become evident during those late teen, early twenties years.
The reporters know why, they could say why and go off the air in one minute. Reporters get off on the “why”, because that’s what their audience is asking as well. It’s annoying to those of us that know why and wish they’d just shut up with it so we could process our feelings and move on.
I am in violent agreement with your points and appreciative of your first-hand testimonial. I am not willing to share the relatively free pass you give to the media, though.
Idealistic me expects better of the news media. Maybe I’ve hero-worshiped reporters excessively since Watergate or maybe I always secretly lusted after Clark Kent and sublimated my forbidden desire by admiring all reporters. Whatever the reason, I believe and expect that people reporting news have to do more than do stream-of-consciousness surface narratives.
The reporting of some facts — like facts on how few hospital beds there are for mental health needs or how stingy insurance companies have become with mental health benefits — could truly help our community defuse some of the future tragic situations.
I think we need to spend money to save lives — not just the lives suddenly extinguished violently, but the other lives that become joyless because of mental health problems. At the same time, if society in general is unaware of the need to spend this money (or that the money is NOT being spent) then the situation won’t improve.
If we’re not going to have effective gun control, could we please at least spend some money helping the mental health of gun owners?
It’s not so much I give anything to the News media. They have an audience, they have subject matter, and they drum up what their audience wants. The more Americans watch the more advertisers are willing to pay for placement. It’s there to make money, not provide quality news reporting.
Modern News media is anything but news. It’s drivel for the masses. Those of us who want news have to search very carefully for a source. Usually I’ve found that on PBS and BBC, but even they aren’t perfect.
You can tell if a man is gay if he likes Clark Kent over Louis Lane. I think (for CBS at any rate) that the news media took a nosedive when the seasoned veterans like Walter Cronkite were replaced by Dan Rather.
Lois who?