OK, this is bugging me and I don't know the proper forum for it, but I don't understand the media coverage of recent mass shootings. In particular, I'm thinking of the NIU shooting versus the Lane Bryant massacre. These both occurred in recent weeks, both in areas on the outskirts of Chicago (where I'm from). Five people were killed in each case.
The Lane Bryant shooting was being reported I think on the night of the Superbowl and the next day. The NIU shooting occurred on Valentine's Day. Once they reported the initial Lane Bryant shooting, they dropped the story. I had to do a little digging online to finally find out that they had a suspect in custody.
The NIU shooting is still all over the news, almost a week later.
My heart goes out to the victims and their families in both cases. But why has the NIU shooting received so much more attention? Is it possible that no one cares about the, ahem, types of people who shop at Lane Bryant? Or is it that there were so many witnesses to the NIU shooting, compared to no witnesses to the Lane Bryant shooting?
I hope this thread doesn't turn into an argument for or against guns, but I have an inclination to blame the ready availability of guns for the sheer number of incidents like these. People kill people, but guns make it a whole lot easier. (Did anybody notice that the same online dealer sold guns to the Virginia Tech gunman and equipment to the NIU killer?)
Also, when a school or college is involved (Columbine, Red Lake, Virginia Tech) the national media jump on it and give it wall-to-wall coverage for days, in particular interviewing survivors and grieving next of kin. (OTOH, if the shooting takes place @ a store or other place of business, they probably assume it's a robbery.) Am I the only one who thinks that kind of coverage just gives other misfits permission to go thou, do likewise and get the attention you crave? I see they haven't given quite that much time to the NIU killings, I don't know whether to attribute that to "ho hum, another campus massacre" or "let's not encourage anyone else to do the same". Cover it certainly, but it's not the only story out there. Give it 5 minutes and then move on to what's gonna happen in Cuba now that Castro's retiring
There IS media discrimination -- against a lot of different groups. I realized this when I not only read about one, but two different missing pregnant women around the same time Lacy Peterson was missing. The difference, one was black and one was Hispanic. I didn't see them on CNN -- I read their stories on the internet when I searched the news for "pregnant missing woman." I'm sure the same thing can be said about Natalie Holloway -- how many other students were missing abroad when she disappeard? I'm sure they were plenty, but the media only decided to sensationalize her story. There are other legitimate reasons for not covering ALL missing people, but when you look at the list of the ones that they chose to cover, one begins to wonder.
I am sad to say that I did not even hear about the Lane Byrant shotting. Wow.
Wow. It truly is a sad day when I am walking down the mall with my daughters and thinking about what I would do if something were to happen (In the last 5 years or go we have had one shooting and one stabbing at our local mall).
As for the media coverage...I agree that it is probably because it is a school. It is unfortunate and it does not make the pain any worse for the families and friends that lost someone they loved.
One more thing that I have to say...I totally, completely, without a doubt am against gun control. I do not own a gun and criminals don't get their guns through legal measures...! Just sayin' ... and I will not say another word on the matter.
Media Coverage of Recent Mass Shootings
One more thing that I have to say...I totally, completely, without a doubt am against gun control. I do not own a gun and criminals don't get their guns through legal measures...! Just sayin' ... and I will not say another word on the matter.
