Zlatan 7
We've got bush!
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 11,778
Yes, I agree with everything written here. It’s my exact thoughts that I tried putting across but not as well.For me the problem with broadcasting the footage of the murders is that, while 99 people out of 100 might be appalled by it - hell, even 999 people out of 1000 - there are always those outliers that would be inspired by it. And the 999 people are probably the ones who would never consider going on a murderous rampage anyway. Those people dont need the exposure to something like this to show them it is wrong, they know it anyway.
Even setting aside the question of broadcasting the footage itself, merely reporting these atrocities as widely as we do sometimes feels like it fetishises terrorism. I always picture the next jihadi wannabee watching on TV thinking, I could have done a better job than that, or I would do this or that differently to make sure I killed more people. I imagine it being almost like each atrocity gets a "score" and the next person sees it and thinks, right, this is the score to beat, I have to do it better, I have to be more efficient, I have to kill more people, I have to make the scene more spectacular, more dramatic. Its the same with these school shootings in America as well.
I dont know what to do about that, and I have given it a lot of thought over the years. I certainly do not advocate brushing these news stories under the carpet - either not reporting them, or underreporting them, in order to deprive the incidents of oxygen and the terrorists of the "glory" or notoriety they seek. People have a right to know what is going on. But I do think the fame these terrorists get, even after death, is part of the incentive - and a not insignificant part of it at that. They see it as giving meaning to their boring, uneventful, inconsequential lives. They do something that goes down in history, their names, or at least their deeds, live on, and maybe change the course of history.
I think broadcasting their deeds live exacerbates that problem many times over. It is a step in the wrong direction. As I said before, it subjects. say, 999 people out of 1000 to something that will deeply, deeply unsettle them, to ensure they never do something they would never have done anyway. But for the 1000th person that might be thinking about doing something like this, my guess is it only increases the appeal. It shows them the world WILL see what they do, it will be dumbfounded by it, their deeds will be broadcast into every living room around the world. For people looking for notoriety, it ratchets up the notoriety on offer to even higher levels.
If you want to tell me that this 1000th person, this potential mass murderer, this complete outlier of a human being, is thinking about mass murder, but is going to watch a video of it and think, actually, that is really horrible, I dont think I am going to do that after all? I guess it is possible, but I dont buy it. I think the person capable of these actions sees this video in a completely different light to the rest of us.
I think maybe the way forward is reporting the incident but putting absolutely no focus on the person who carried out the attack at all, no need for Their name, their background (he was a sweet kid nonsense), the details and maps showing details of what went on of the incident itself. Glorifying the weapons, the equipment. It’s all becoming too normalised.
All the focus should be on the lives lost, and the people who helped.
That will still show the destruction that terrorism causes but without glorifying what some knobhead has done. They should get no exposure at all.