A friend of a family member found himself swarmed by news reporters last week.
He happened to be the postal carrier for the home of the gunman in the Binghamton massacre last week. The street were the gunman lived was one of several sites where large packs of journalists from all over the country were camping out in the hours and days after the tragedy.
The postal carrier couldn't say anything - his job won't allow it - but the description of the scene reminded me of how the media often become a part of the story they're covering when the news is big enough. In fact, the Binghamton area newspaper included a feature on the media coverage in their Saturday edition.
It's inevitable that stories like these bring intense media scrutiny. We've certainly devoted a significant portion of our space, both in print and online, to the Binghamton shooting.
But there are some valid points from critics of the way the news media handle these stories.
Consider this thought-provoking comment that was made by a reader on our Web site:
“The media is going to carry stories of violent crimes, which is also their right, but more because the stories sell newspapers (and radio, and TV and websites) than for any other reason. Like a bad eating habit, the public eats it up and wants more. Individuals who are already mentally unbalanced find a focus for their rage, a plan, an idea, in these news stories, and see how much attention they can get, and there you go again.”
By no means am I trying remove responsibility for Friday's tragedy from the gunman, but I think there is something to be said for the role the news media - The Citizen included - play in influencing human behavior.
It's at times like these when we can really use feedback from the public on what people seek in coverage of stories like this one. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that the Binghamton story be ignored, and most would say that extra attention to the story is also warranted.
But do we pay too much attention to certain aspects of the story. Is there, for example, too much coverage given to the life of the gunman? Does that give other unstable people motivation to do something similar?
On the other hand, if we don't examine what happened in this person's life, will we miss out on learning something that could prevent a future tragedy?
These are questions I'm wrestling with this week, and I'd appreciate hearing our readers' thoughts.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's columns appear Tuesdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
The postal carrier couldn't say anything - his job won't allow it - but the description of the scene reminded me of how the media often become a part of the story they're covering when the news is big enough. In fact, the Binghamton area newspaper included a feature on the media coverage in their Saturday edition.
It's inevitable that stories like these bring intense media scrutiny. We've certainly devoted a significant portion of our space, both in print and online, to the Binghamton shooting.
But there are some valid points from critics of the way the news media handle these stories.
Consider this thought-provoking comment that was made by a reader on our Web site:
“The media is going to carry stories of violent crimes, which is also their right, but more because the stories sell newspapers (and radio, and TV and websites) than for any other reason. Like a bad eating habit, the public eats it up and wants more. Individuals who are already mentally unbalanced find a focus for their rage, a plan, an idea, in these news stories, and see how much attention they can get, and there you go again.”
By no means am I trying remove responsibility for Friday's tragedy from the gunman, but I think there is something to be said for the role the news media - The Citizen included - play in influencing human behavior.
It's at times like these when we can really use feedback from the public on what people seek in coverage of stories like this one. I can't imagine anyone suggesting that the Binghamton story be ignored, and most would say that extra attention to the story is also warranted.
But do we pay too much attention to certain aspects of the story. Is there, for example, too much coverage given to the life of the gunman? Does that give other unstable people motivation to do something similar?
On the other hand, if we don't examine what happened in this person's life, will we miss out on learning something that could prevent a future tragedy?
These are questions I'm wrestling with this week, and I'd appreciate hearing our readers' thoughts.
Executive editor Jeremy Boyer's columns appear Tuesdays in The Citizen and he can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 231 or jeremy.boyer@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 1 comment(s)
karl the 2nd wrote on Apr 9, 2009 6:27 PM:
For instance, a person who snaps like this--what the hell caused it?
Why was a person feeling driven to do something like this?
It may help other people around the next potential killer or criminal to think of the extenuating circumstances and maybe prevent the crime before it occurs.
On the other hand, I can't tell you strongly enough how I believe that carrying inflammatory CRAP like Mike Reagan, or for instance Glenn Beck's latest GARBAGE on his radio and TV shows IS DEFINITELY inflammatory and provocative--look at that kid in Philly who shot three police officers when he was stirreed up by this "The Government is taking away your guns" crap.
I would sincerely urge you to take another look at the garbage that Mike Reagan is spewing. Seriously, it's all that paranoid, inciting Right-Wing nonsense that is helping to keep the country divided and so polarized! "