BUCKLE SEAT BELT -- WASH POST SAYS MEDIA DISTORTS GUN VIOLENCE

abruzzi

New member
THE ATTACHED ARTICLE REVIEWING THE YEARS SHOOTINGS ACKNOWLEDGES THE ROLE MEDIA OVERREACTION HAS HAD IN EXAGGERATING THE FEAR OF GUN VIOLENCE AND GENERATING DEMANDS FOR SHORT TERM, SHORT SIGHTED, SOLUTIONS.

Year of Mass Shootings Leaves Scar on U.S.
Sense of Safety Suffers as Fewer Believe 'It Can't Happen Here'
By Sue Anne Pressley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 3, 2000; Page A01

In the past, a list like the one found in December at the high school in the small, west Idaho town of Parma might have been viewed as a not-very-amusing, even disturbed joke. It consisted of the names of 30 boys and 30 girls, fully 20 percent of the student body, many of them athletes and minorities, under the heading: "People to Kill, 12/17/99."

But school officials and town police--mindful of the violence that shattered the peace in schools, churches and workplaces from Alabama to Washington state last year--were taking no chances when a student turned in the list she said she found on the floor after health class Dec. 9. They sprang into action in the final days before the holiday break, hauling in portable metal detectors to scan every entering student, dispatching practically the entire police squad of the town of 1,800 to patrol the school hallways and enforcing a new rule: Students are not allowed to carry any sort of book bag or gym bag to school.

"It's hard to say, but we probably wouldn't have treated it the same way years ago. We would probably have written it off as somebody's stupid idea of a cruel joke," said Clif Lauritzen, acting police chief of the farming town 40 miles west of Boise. "But can we afford not to take it seriously? I don't think so."

Fortunately, nothing happened at Parma High School, although police continue to search for the author of the list. But the episode, which briefly made national headlines, highlighted a fundamental change in the national psyche that has evolved over the past year: No longer do Americans automatically dismiss the notion of someone opening fire in their office or schoolyard or church sanctuary with the bromide, "It could never happen here."

Now, there is an acute public awareness that violent tragedy can occur anywhere, as easily in Fort Gibson, Okla., where a 13-year-old middle-school student opened fire with a semiautomatic handgun Dec. 6, wounding four students, as in Fort Worth, where a gunman walked into a church prayer rally for teenagers Sept. 15 and fatally shot seven worshipers before turning the gun on himself.

The bloodshed continued right up until the year's end. On Thursday, an employee at a Tampa hotel packed with holiday football fans opened fire, killing four co-workers and wounding three others. The employee, Silvio Izquierdo-Leyva, 36, a housekeeper at the Radisson Bay Harbor Inn, killed a fifth person as he attempted a carjacking to escape.

Police captured Izquierdo-Leyva but as yet have determined no motive for the shootings.

Something vital shifted during the turbulent months of 1999, despite statistics showing that violent crime is down overall.

In interviews with crime analysts, university professors, police officers and citizens, it is clear that while such mass public shootings can still stun, they no longer surprise.

Media-fueled images have been seared into the public consciousness forever: panicked students streaming out of Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., on an April afternoon, fleeing a scene where 15 people, including the two teenage gunmen, lay dead or dying; or a line of small children, most too young to realize fully the danger they were in, exiting hand-in-hand from a Los Angeles Jewish community center in August after a white supremacist shot and wounded five people there. As these tragedies have dominated the news, involving more cities and towns across America, public comfort levels have plummeted.

"I guess you could say we have had a kind of wake-up call around here," Lauritzen said last week. "Sometimes people go through life fat, dumb and happy, thinking nothing can ever happen here. Well, it's happening everywhere else, why not here?"

Although indications are that few people actually fear for their own personal safety when they go to church or work or school--and the knowledge of these shootings apparently has not curtailed public outings--more people now seem to consider the possibilities of getting caught in such gunfire.

"I always thought this area was so nice and quiet and safe, but it's not safe, and no place is safe anymore. It's something I think about all the time," said Aeta Hwang, who runs a dry-cleaning business in the Birmingham suburb of Pelham, Ala., where a man opened fire at two companies one morning in early August, killing three people--marking the nation's second workplace shooting in a week's time. On July 29, in the Atlanta area, disturbed stock trader Mark O. Barton had killed nine people and wounded 13 others at two day-trading firms after slaying his wife and two children; he committed suicide that night as police closed in.

Alan Lipman, a professor of clinical and criminal psychology at Georgetown University, said that while there is "a slight increase in workplace violence, there is not an increase in agoraphobia," or fear of public places.

"There is no reason to believe in terms of large numbers that this society as a whole is beginning to fear going out," he said recently. "I don't think it's denial. There's still no question that most of our schools are safe, most of our workplaces are safe, and while we should become more sensitized to the possibility of violence happening, it is critically important not to go overboard."

Since the fall of 1997, when a 16-year-old boy in Pearl, Miss., killed his mother, then went to school and fatally shot two students and wounded seven others, there have been nine school shootings across the country, according to the Associated Press and other news reports.

Three occurred this year--the case in Fort Gibson, Okla.; in Conyers, Ga., where a 15-year-old boy in May wounded six students with a .357 Magnum and a rifle; and in Littleton, Colo., the most unforgettable and deadly case of all.

"Columbine was different," Lipman said about the April 20 tragedy where teenagers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris killed 12 students and one teacher, effectively holding the school hostage before killing themselves. "The scope and degree of violence made an unusual and specific mark on the nation."

Jack Levin, director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston, said the mass shootings this year by adults reflected "more apocalyptic thinkers who are translating their doom-and-gloom visions into murder."

He cited Benjamin Smith, a member of a hate group, the World Church of the Creator, who in July went on a spree near Chicago, killing a black former college basketball coach and a Korean graduate student, and injuring six Orthodox Jews. Levin also included in that category Buford O. Furrow Jr., charged in the shootings at the Los Angeles Jewish community center and with the slaying of a Filipino mail carrier later the same day, and Larry Gene Ashbrook, who went on the rampage in the Fort Worth church.

Levin fears Americans are not learning very much from these episodes. "I hate to say it, but we look at short-term, expedient solutions," he said. "We make our schools into armed camps by stationing metal detectors everywhere. It makes us feel safe, even if we are not."

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, argues that the mass media, with its penchant for what he calls "the big-story syndrome," must seriously review its role in the events of the past year.

"To some extent, there's a limit to what the press can worry about," he said. "If a deranged person sees something in the news, you can't hold the journalist responsible for this crime. We can ask, is the coverage glorifying the killer? Is it making a more famous person than he or she should be, given the significance of the crime?"

Competition between media outlets also often comes into play, he said. What happened in San Antonio in November may illustrate that point.

On Nov. 9, news flashes on two San Antonio television stations and one radio station reported that there had been yet another school shooting, this time at Coker Elementary School.

One report said that as many as 14 students had been injured by shattered glass, and at least 60 parents reportedly heard the broadcasts. Some panicked, rushing to the school to find their children.

It turned out, however, that the reports were false. What did happen, said San Antonio police spokeswoman Sandy Gutierrez, was that a school employee's truck was shot at, in a case of suspected road rage, as he was driving to work that morning. When he arrived at Coker, he made the call to report the incident to police from a school telephone, which led to the confusion. The San Antonio Express-News reported the next day that the shooting report was taken from inaccurate emergency radio transmissions.

"The incident occurred miles from the school, and at no time were teachers or students in any danger," Gutierrez said.

News director Jim Boyle at KSAT television in San Antonio, which is owned by The Washington Post Co., accepted blame for his station's actions. "Obviously, we made a mistake," he said. "We had believed we had confirmed the story, but we were wrong."

Nick Simonette, news director at KENS television station in San Antonio, said he had no comment.

But Michael Main, managing editor at San Antonio radio station WOAI, had plenty to say about the incident. His station held off reporting the alleged shooting, citing the confusion often surrounding 911 calls.

"Certainly the media overreaction was prompted by Columbine," he said, "but also a lot by the intense media market, trying to be first with the story. Surely, no one wants to report a shooting at an elementary school. Unfortunately, everybody ended up having to report a story they wouldn't have reported at all. We had to tell people there was not a shooting, which was, well, bizarre."


Staff researcher Lynn Davis contributed to this report.
 
This may make me sound like a terrible guy, but based upon the media's performance in the past year, I'm afraid I no longer believe that "Surely, no one wants to report a shooting at an elementary school." I honestly believe that the scum at HCI and VPC, not to mention the various print and electronic media, really eat this stuff up. They use it so quickly for propaganda, it is just impossible for me to believe there isn't a part of them that appreciates the 'opportunity'.

I will never forget that HCI updated their web page on the very day of the Columbine shootings. They milked that event at light speed, and surely before there was any time for reasonable analysis of the facts.
 
One quibble I have is: "We make our schools into armed camps by stationing metal detectors everywhere. It makes us feel safe, even if we are not."

No, we turn our schools into "Gun Free Zones", which "makes us feel safe, even if we are not."

Interesting thought process that equates getting a metal detector with arming oneself.


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Oatka, your insight seems a revelation to me: It is about the illusion of power, not the possession of power.



[This message has been edited by G-Freeman (edited January 03, 2000).]
 
Its interesting that in Israel they did turn their schools in to armed camps to stop the shooting and it worked. We went the other direction.
 
Since when do metal detectors constitute an "armed camp" - the maroon is clearly lost in his own hyperbole. Y'all got the illusion part right. Any determined BG with half a brain will find the back door in.

SAAMI is now offering a FREE guide (cheat sheet) to non-firearms literate journalists on how to write accurately about firearms, should be interesting to see how many (if any) actually bother to get a copy.

I have long held that the major reason these incidents are so 'sensational' is because they are relatively rare. Contray to what the fear-mongers say, gun violence in schools has been on the declline for most of the `90's. I also believe that sensationalizing these incidents really provides impetus (and a plan) for the copycats. Any dweeb kid that wants attention now knows how to get it.
M2
 
Small note: The man who sold the Columbine killers the Tec-9 is the son of an HCI activist. Did mama put him up to it so kids would get killed and her gang could promote more gun control laws? The press sure has covered up the HCI connection.

Jim
 
You are all welcome to call me crazy. But I have long thought that it would be a simple matter to search the net for chat rooms and bulletin boards that cater to the adolescents. You would be looking for a number of kids that fit "a profile".
Then spend 3 to 6 months befriending them and then filling their heads with mush. Secure in the knowledge that out of say, 100 or so kids you are likely to have 1 perhaps 2 that you can push over the edge. Couple that with a small amount of information on where to steal or maybe where to purchase firearms and ammo, and you've got a horror story looking for a place to happen!
After all if your goal is to ban all guns and you can justify in your mind that these kids are no more than the necessary "martyrs to the cause". Well then what's to hold you back? Think of it, you'll be saving countless thousands of children's lives when all guns are baned!

Just my 2 cents worth, but an interesting tought don't ya think? :)

------------------
Abe

If everyone thought like me, I'd be a damn fool to think any different!
 
Articles like this really piss me off, actually. They _appear_ to be critical, as if the W Post were engaged in some hard soul searching. But what is said in this article that is really critical?

It contains is some "expert" saying that we look too much to short term solutions, rather than long term ones. Now, for one thing, am I the only one who just cracks up when he reads this crap? Now that's real insight, don't you think? People look to short term rather than long term solutions. Tell me, isn't it amazing how experts can point out something new and trenchant in what you thought was so familiar and well-understood? Geezus.

Anyway, even better, he doesn't say what the short-term solutions _are_. We're all supposed to know. Don't you?

Presumably metal detectors are one of these terrible short-term solutions... and we're supposed to think to ourselves, "yeah, the media really does push us into adopting defensive measures out of fear, like metal detectors!" But then, John or Jane Q. Public thinks, "but metal detectors aren't sooo bad.. we have to do something in the short term, right?" (these are not unpopular measures among many nervous PTA's understand.) So, then, like it's the reader's own discovery, mainstream media is forgiven for the charge it so honestly and searchingly makes against itself. "yeah, they have gone a _bit_ overboard", the Average Reader is now supposed to think, "but we do have to have these security measures... so, it's not soo bad". Everyone feel better?

The next thing we're told is that the media tends to overreact to the possibilty of these mass killings. This is supposed to be a really painful admission, the cathartic confession of the article. But what "lesson" is supposed to be learned? Presumably that they should wait an extra hour or so sometimes to check their facts. Like in San Antonio. Definitely a hard and painful lesson learned, don't you think?

So, we have yet another of the same, insipid, supposedly self-critical pieces we get as a perfunctory matter of course when some topic dominates the news. The underlying subtextual idea, of course, is that THESE are the flaws of the news coverage. Yeah, they're a bit bad, and we can all understand how otherwise good-intentioned newshounds go overboard, but at least we all learn from this, and it's still pretty good that they're telling us so much so fast, blah, blah, blah

The worst thing about is not just the self-indulgence, and the waste of space and time. It's that this crap is just another way _not_ to talk about what they _should_ be saying, but aren't. Deliberately aren't.

I'll be repeating to many readers here, but here goes anyway. And these are just a few:

(1) These terrible incidents notwithstanding, violent crime rates are lower now than they have been in thirty years. Thirty years. Violent crime rates (all categories) are lower by about 25% than they were at the beginning of the 70's.

(2) Around 1970 both the total number of guns and guns per capita were approximately half what they are today.

(1) and (2) together give us that the size of the gun stock in the U.S., in total and per capital, has doubled in thirty years and crime has _dropped_ a little more than 25%.

(3) No one, ever, has provided convincing evidence that gun restriction measures have reduced violent crime. Never. Not any place in the world at any time. Not in Britain, not in Canada, not in Australia, not in New Zealand, not in Mexico, not in the U.S., nowhere. At no time.

And they've tried. Researchers Wright and Rossi, for example, were hired by the Justice Department in the early eighties to find just the evidence that I'm discussing. They believed it was there, initially, and set out to find it. Their conclusion? No good evidence gun control--anywhere-- had reduced crime. Never. Justice Department's response? Don't release the study. Talk about "gun deaths", make facile comparisons of "gun homicides" here to the U.K., that sort of thing, which is all and has been uncritically repeated by the establishment news media for at least two decades now.

And the f**king papers _know_ this!! They do research, or at least _could_. And they just refuse to print it. They will not tell us these facts.

So as far as I'm concerned, if these people want to write a self-critical piece, let them write about _that_. Let them explain this continual, deliberate, deceitful presentation of propaganda as "news". Let them ask "hard questions" about that.

As it is, all this supposed "dialogue" with their readers to help us all "get at the truth" is a cartoonish farce. I, for one, am sick of it.

And I'm sick of it, at bottom, because of the simple fact that I don't want this kind of thing to happen in schools, or hotels, or churches, or anyplace, anymore!! I mean, I _really_ don't!! It's not a question of what these incidents "show" or not about some longstanding public debate, the answer to which we do in fact know. It's a question of whether we're willing to face that fact that terrorist attacks-- and that's what these are-- are not evidence of the bad that lurks within the hearts of all of us, so that we must now do penance by giving up _our_ weapons, or, in the case of kids, giving up gym bags (??!!!!) or nail clippers. It's a question of whether jackasses like these writers will recognize the fact that these incidents tell us... surpise.. that the victims of these incidents need to be defended!!!! Is that so hard to understand??? That's what we're talking about. The practical question-- how do we defend the victims of these attacks!??

I just wish that someone controlling a major news outlet was willing to fire these mushy-brained writers, put the "self-examination" aside for a minute, and think about what we can _do_, by which I mean things that might actually do some good.

And yes, I don't need to remind anyone here, we do have some idea of what that might be. It may include metal detectors, fine, but the "secrets" of defense aren't otherwise some psychoanalytic mystery. Ask the Israeli teachers. Or ask Clinton's Secret Service. Is it really so hard??

(exhale...) :)
 
CitGuard,

Wright and Rossi were actually grantees of the Carter administration who were looking to see what gun control laws worked so they could pass more of them. They completed their study a few years later (80s).

Speaking of media bias, this week, the two Tucson, Arizona papers (Star and Citizen: same paper, same building) have decided that they would stop advertising private sales because they circumvent the requirement for a federal background check.

We are launching a campaign for gun owners to drop their subscriptions of the paper as well as internet service (azstarnet).

If your local paper does something similar, I suggest you do the same.

Also, Brills Content had an article about media bias on gun issues. I don't have the URL.

Rick

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Back
Top