opinions influenced by the media?

[jennofay]

i was leaving the library to go back to get my art history book and study for my final tonight when an article in the washington post caught my attention.the article was entitled "Va. Scientist Was Killed With Sword." it tells about three young people who were arrested for the 'planned assasination' of a scientist. the three were, according to the article, interested in the occult and partook in blood-letting and blood-drinking rituals. the death itself was a horrible thing, as is any murder. the man was stabbed and slashed repeatedly with a sword and then an "x" was carved into the back of his neck. and for some reason, the article, not the crime, really makes me angry.

i wrote for a local paper in carroll county, maryland for two years,so i feel that i have some authority to talk here. the article itself really pissed me off.

numerous times (three or four i believe) in a relatively short article, it was mentioned that the suspects "wore black," "favored all-black outfits," and "donned dark outfits." it was also said numerous times that they "read books on whichcraft," or that one of the suspects was "into witchcraft." the fact that these young people "spent hours on the internet," or "in internet chat rooms," that they liked long black coats and colored hair, and that one of the suspects (a male) "painted his nails dark colors," were also mentioned. the female suspect was referred to as a "talented artist" and one who "excelled in art class."

well, lock me up i guess. every one of these things that the article made out to be "traits of a killer" is something that applies to me. i wear mostly black because i find that i feel more comfortable in it, and i dont have to worry about matching. ive read books about witchcraft and many other religions because religion as a whole fascinates me. i am not religious, i dont believe in organized religion, but i do find it to be intriguing. i spend, or i used to spend, way too much time on the internet. now i just do when im procrastinating from studying for a test , my nails are right now dark red, they have been many colors, but i would say that if i am going to paint them, they will be a dark color. my hair was purple over thanksgiving, now its got a pink-y tint to it. and, i am going to an art school on a scholarship. does all of this make me a killer?

this is just like the school shootings from years ago when everyone was afraid of people who wore black trench coats. fuck, people, we cant stereotype based on someones talents or appearance. havent we, as humans, evolved past that?

the article mentions once...i repeat... once ...that one of the suspects had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and had not been on medication for these illnesses for three months (not to say that all mentally ill people are killers either...) i would think that this would be emphasized, or even facts surrounding the murder itself, a place, motive, where the deceaseds family is and how they are doing, rather than the fact that the murderers 'wore black.' the information about the crime itself was saved for the end of the article on page A11. you had to continue the article on a different page two times to get to that information.

im really interested to see what anyone has to say about this. i know this is really long, but what does everyone think about the way the media portrays people? is this right? should myself and all my fellow black-wearing, nail-painting, artist friends be locked up?

Problem being that you read it in the Washington Post, which is a great big shitbag newspaper.

Unfortunately, we will always do this. As anyone who spends considerable amounts of time with me knows, I was appalled at the reaction to Columbine - these "computer savvy" folks, with an interest in firearms, listened to (and I quote here), "Germans bands, such as Rammstein and KMFDM." They played DOOM. All of these things fit me. I personally wasn't treated wrongly because of it, but the fact that the media would even mention their musical preference, I found to be ridiculous. Would they have mentioned this:

"The killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, were computer savvy and were both known for their frequent listening of Mariah Carey." ?

Of fucking course not. Rammstein and KMFDM, both of whom I do enjoy listening to, are German. And this is a big deal? This makes them killers? Of course not.

Sadly, we can't trust the mainstream media to be accurate and unbiased in their reporting - they are, after all, human beings, and therefore are flawed. You have to seek out the good news sources - Bill O'Reilly is one, and there are others. Unfortunately, the populace doesn't see this, and they tend to trust whatever they read in a newspaper. Newspapers operate to make money. They make money by having readers. To get readers, they need to get stories. And that is why some facts are fabricated or stretched or over-emphasized - to get readers. It's a sorry state of being, but that's the way it is.

[Scopulus Argentarius]

I agree with you that the media intentially uses occult or hate-mongreling catch-phrases to paint some scenes darker than they really are.

"They were into the occult...wore black....studied witchkraft..etc"

These are usually gratuitous falsehoods thrown into a story in order to graft some haunting mystery to it. Could also be short-circuit thinking by the reporter.

I'm sure you've witnessed how inaccurate a news report can be when it falsely skews a story about something you witnessed alongside the reporter. I have.

Anyway, of the 2 local news programs on tv here, one repeatably draws in occult references to an occasional crime; they , however, get use some obviously wrong cliche's. The other one is more community oriented (does not refernec occult stuff) and does not get sued as often as the first. As the saying goes around here : " '2 is on your side' .. but 9 in on your ass "

[elSicomoro]

Yes Jenni! To the slammer with you and your little art-nazi friends!!!

(Man, I have been on a roll all night. Probably b/c I'm feeling damned good about leaving my job Thursday...and the Rams are currently up by 7 over the Saints. )

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Problem being that you read it in the Washington Post, which is a great big shitbag newspaper.

The Washington Post, liberal as it may be, is probably one of the best newspapers in the United States. Period. Besides, if you live in the DC area, what the hell else are you going to read besides the Baltimore Sun? Certainly not the Moonie-run Washington Times! Heh...

In any case, all newspapers/radio/media/whatever are guilty of sensationalism. I remember when the big bonfire pile collapsed at Texas A&M 2 years ago. I happened to be reading wtop.com around that time, and the headline read something like this:

"Several students in bonfire collapse were DRUNK"

Just like that. "DRUNK" in capital letters. Just that word in caps. Man, was I pissed! So, I fired an e-mail to them saying how I felt that was in poor taste. And the response?

Reply-to: Stephen Dolge <sdolge@wtopnews.com>
To: syc75@springmail.com
Subject: wtop website

Terry,

You shold know I absolutely agree with you on your point about DRUNK being in poor taste.
That's why I personally changed it the minute I saw it.

Hopefully that won't happen again. If it does, let me know personally.

Thank you.

Steve Dolge
Managing Editor, wtopnews.com

SDolge@wtopnews.com

Now that's action baby!

O'Reilly is a moron.

Seriously though, Americans find it hard to warm up to something that is not considered "normal." So right away, it's considered "strange." Then, something bad happens where these "strange" things happen to be involved (e.g. the Columbine killers' like for Marilyn Manson and KMFDM), and right away, "they" are the enemy. I mean, heaven forbid that these kids were merely just fucked up...we need an excuse! A scapegoat! Because that's one of the greatest things about being American...the ability to blame others for bad situations.

[jaguar]

Having been forced to listen to a dipshit excuse for an editorial journo use BUFFY and CHARMED as evidence in relation to witchcraft i lost all remaining faith in journalism and decided to do marketing/advertising instead (at least they ADMIT they are cocksucking, moneygrubbing whores to public interest). The lines between so called Tabloid journalism with its screaming headlines and questionable sources and quality news reporitng does seem to be thinning more and more. CNN lost all respect when the quoted an anomymous message board.

[tw]

Originally posted by jennofay
well, lock me up i guess. every one of these things that the article made out to be "traits of a killer" is something that applies to me. i wear mostly black because i find that i feel more comfortable in it, and i dont have to worry about matching. ive read books about witchcraft and many other religions because religion as a whole fascinates me. i am not religious, i dont believe in organized religion, but i do find it to be intriguing. i spend, or i used to spend, way too much time on the internet. now i just do when im procrastinating from studying for a test

The article did what is was suppose to do. It is suppose to identify unique traits; facts that make the event unique from the public, in general; and from other crimes. IOW they provided raw facts and did not draw conclusions.

Unfortunately, they are raw facts. Too many cannot discern raw facts from a conclusion. Too many jump to conclusions only based upon raw facts. That is not the paper's fault. Assumed is that the paper has drawn conclusions when all they have done is provide raw facts - as they should have.

The basis of racism - which is really only pre-judging people by first impressions (color of skin included) - is a science article in this week's The Economist. We humans constantly try to immediately judge people by first impressions. It is why we so push person A to "make a good first impression" rather than address person B's racist attitudes. Attitudes that make it necessary for Person A to make that good first impression.

We categorize immediately based upon our own biases. Those biases are how we "categorize" rather than "wait for the fact to be in before drawing conclusions".

I don't blame the Washington Post for providing raw facts. I blame humanity for not addressing this evil need to condemn based only upon first impressions. IOW that Economist article discusses how to make a racist not longer a racist. The racist is taught how to categorize differently so that he does not make immediately and therefore inaccurately conclude erroneous first impressions.

We always do this. For example, when the NBC radio lineup was Don Imus in the morning, Soupy Sales around noon, and Howard in the afternoon, I had this impression of Robin Quivers as a white girl who always worn long red dresses. I was therefore biased because I had categorized based only upon raw facts - her voice.

I draw no conclusions based upon the fact that all accused murder's coincidentally wore long black leather coats. It is a raw fact that I thank the Washington Post for. In the future it may lead to a significant conclusion; or maybe just nothing more than a memory hook. But I draw no conclusions based upon any descriptions of those accused murders in the Post. In trying to be tolerant, I don't suddenly fear people who wear only black (even though I am sometimes suspicious of Priests and Nuns). My entire life, I have been trying to eliminate racism in my thinking. As the Economist noted, we will never accomplish it. But we must keep trying. To make any conclusions of that Washington Post article's raw facts would simply be another form of racism.

I can appreciate jennofay's concern for how those raw facts were presented because too many of us don't come to grips with how racist we categorized those who are different. IOW those raw facts presented by the Washington Post will result is a racist attitude against groups who all wear long black leather coats. But that is not the fault of the Post. That is the fault of us - the public - who don't encourage tolerance. Tolerance is to wait; reserve conclusions until more than a few raw facts are presented.

The paper presented raw facts. They did not draw conclusions. Those conclusions will be drawn by racist attitudes - people who judge based solely on first impressions.

[jaguar]

I disagree, strongly. THe paper di not jsut provide raw facts, it emphasised some at the cost of others. if that had put bland slate sentences or point facts, that wouldhave ben raw facts, putting htem inside a carefuly structures areticle like that, emphasising some at the cost of others is very different, thats slanting the article, bias whatver you want to call it.

[Xugumad]

Just as a minor counterpoint:
(potential flamebait as well, not intended as one)

Most of us who post here are 'enlightened' in our beliefs that evil is not created by art and cultural influences.

Playing violent games does not equal killing.

Playing 'dark' RPGs doesn't cause real suffering.

Watching and listening to violent and 'dark' films, shows, and music doesn't turn cause violence and evil.

The Internet and 'chat rooms' have done nothing to 'turn kids hearts black', unlike George W. Bush claimed.

The two main Columbine killers were clinically insane, and the fact that they were exposed to and cherished most if not all of the above was just circumstantial. Other school shootings were done by kids who never listened to KMFDM or Marilyn Manson.

Media isn't at fault. Conservative and religious nutjobs who want to ban all that's not in their narrow and reactionary 'family values' interests are just playing to their bigoted target audience, voters and financial contributors.

Right?

Maybe.

I don't live in the US for most of the year; I've seen naked people on TV and in other media fairly regularly since I was a pre-teen. The puritan prudishness underlying in mainstream US sensitivies is fairly alien to me. As I used to be ridiculously interested in film-making, I've also been exposed to pretty much anything ever committed to celluloid, and as part of my teenage life (late 80s, early 90s) was somewhat boring, I've sampled most of what the US and Europe have produced in the TV and music business. I've played violent and non-violent video and computer games. I'm usually as shocked as most Europeans at the reactionary and censorious tone that the conservative and religious right in the US takes in regards to non-Christian faith and media that 'corrupts the children'... oh, the precious children.

Yet...

there's something wrong with claiming that the music and movies had nothing to do with, for instance, the Columbine school shootings. Mental instability is just a cause; you can be a violent psychopath and go through life quite happily without ever being set off. Sometimes, just the right amount of stimuli is needed; sometimes, schizophrenia requires a catalyst; sometimes, you need to see before you can do.

One of the Columbine killers wrote in his diary how they were going to execute people in the cafetaria, just "like in Doom or Duke" (I'm paraphrasing here)

Sure, some of the information on how to build bombs (most of which didn't explode in Columbine) can be found on the net, available with greater speed and ease than ever before.

A weak mind can be easily influenced by powerful lyrics and imagery in music and film. Books have persuaded people to kill in the name of <insert here> for eons; today's books provide the same stimulus, amplified a thousand times by the speed of the net, the special effects of ILM, the aural impact of surround sound, and the lyrical depth custom-tailored to its under-educated, attention-deprived, thrill-a-minute teenage target audience.

Information overload. Shallow, yet effective. Repeat the same information twenty times, on twenty channels, and it becomes fact. It wasn't? Too late.
Shout into the microphone. Hate. Love. Rhythm. Who cares - it's the mood it needs to evoke - nobody gives a damn about the message, as long as it gets your hypothalamus to start giving instructions to pump out the right type of hormones; it's a success - people react. Most of them. Some don't react the right way, but that's nobody's fault, right?
Bigger. better. Flashier. Faster. Realism on your flatscreen, in 32bit colour at 1600x1200, ideally. 60 frames per second, baby, 300,000 polygons redrawn again and again, texture-mapped, mip-mapped, anti-aliased. Not enough, of course. Dozens of them on the shelves, of course. You either manage to tickle the gamer's inherently addictive personality by exploiting sociologically well-established weak personality traits in addictive personalities (see also MUDs, MMORPGs), or you trick them into believing that they can prove *some kind* of superiority to their supposed peers. (Q(1|2|3), CS, et al) If that doesn't work, single-player must shock, must excite, must be *cool* at all cost. Independently targetable hit-zones on enemy bodies that get wounded realistically, bigger guns, bigger enemies, faster effects, better explosions, slow-motion blood spraying from enemies' heads in bullet time as the music hammers into your brain that you've done it, you've become a demi-God, fulfilled your destiny, lived out the dream.

Music, films, and games are all fishing for an ever-decreasing attention span. The forbidden fruit - knowledge - is accessible to anyone with a computer and a phone line.

There are more than 270 million people living in the US. Some of them will be weak-minded, plain old insane, clinically deranged. They are surrounded by a media cacophony of sensations, all intended to grab their attention and *hold it*, at any cost, whilst public opinion and political trends fluctuate in a bigoted maelstrom of free speech and reactionary bile. Guns don't kill. Free Speech doesn't kill. Nothing kills. If anything is inconvenient, sue. You have a God-given right to comfort and safety.

Yes. The media has contributed to the killings. Anyone with a basic understanding of how the human mind works can figure this out. 'Early profiling' of 'potential trouble-makers', as the educational system is attempting will most likely cause a lot more trouble than solve any issues.

We can't solve it. All we can do is to keep an eye on our children, and make sure that they're only subjected to positive stimuli, for as long as it's feasible. I intend to show my kids 'bad' films, get them to listen to 'dark' music, and spend a lot of time showing them a lot of the trash on the 'net. Once they've seen it, the forbidden fruit is a lot less tempting. And once it's been explained, it's not forbidden or mysterious anymore.

The older I get, the more pro-everything I seem to think as well. Do whatever you want in your house, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Please don't take any *extremely* addictive, death-inducing substances, either, since you'll have to resort to crime to finance your habit. Apart from that, as long as nobody else gets hurt or woken up by the noise, it's your business.

Just something to think about.

X.


PS: The WP is a decent paper. They reported the 'deviant' cultural issues with the suspected killers mostly because a lot of people are blaming such issues, and they have to point out that side of the story. The WP is usually quite liberal in their outlook. They wouldn't dream of actually editorializing that wiccan lifestyles, goth metal, or heavy internet usage cause murders; they do list the facts, though. If the actual medical condition and drug-taking history of the attackers was relegated to the back pages, though, it's sad that they chose a somewhat more sensationalist approach.

[jaguar]

I haven't personally seen anyone deny the medi ahas anythign to do with it, at the tsame time i've never seen anyone but religious concervative nutter types argue its primarily the media.

So your point, paraphrased jsut a tiny bit is that a powerful targeted media and popular arts world can set of weak/damamged minds, sure, does that mean we ban everyone from these things? I live in a country wiht net-censorship laws that are tighter than any other medium (if the application of the laws themselves is so scant as to make them pointless), a country that banned Grant Theft Auto 2/3, and it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. I mean looking at all the stuff that was thrown up after colombine i shoudl be thrown in a cell right now for the safty of all, i'm at jsut the right age, play violent computer games, liten to bands like Linkin Park (whcih was specifically named after one of the shootings), the lsit goes on yet somehow i have absolutely now plans no blow up my school.

I think its more about the envirometn the child happens to be in outside that extermal stimuli that matters, sure it probably won't do a 6yearold much good ot watch pulp fiction and play REturn to Castle Wolfenstien but that will not make any mentally stable person want to kill people. Having been "diagnosed"("we thing you may be suffering depression" wheee no shit sherlock) as clinicaly depressed before I think the best thing they could do is put some real money into in-school social services etc, stop people slipping though the cracks.

8 posts in and offtopic already =)

Nice post btw, loved the use of language.

[Griff]

Whenever we get one of these events the calls go out for more censorship of media to correct bad parenting by individuals. Our censorship fans from the "Christian"right to the "anti-hate" left both think that Pandoras box can nailed shut. My wife recently got a phone call from some media censorship outfit my little sister subscibes to in an effort to control what OTHER PEOPLES kids are viewing, very disturbing. The wife gave them a piece of her mind!

Even at their young age, I've got my eye on the kids in my daughters class. Having had the advantage of being in high schools as an adult, I think I can anticipate some of the potential problems but we need to be aware. To address the first impression issue, I recently shaved my goat and let the hair grow back on my dome, giving the other parents one less thing to worry about

Jag mentioned depression in high school aged guys. I'd be more worried about teenaged boys who don't appear to have any signs of depression, in my experience they're the ones more likely to torment the kids around them, helping to create these explosive situations. Keep a close eye on football players, cheerleaders, and class government types, they are the real threat!

Seriously though, Xugumad touched the key issue. We need to be very balanced in our attitude toward childrens media. We can't let they become overly engrossed or totally deny them access... its damn difficult.

tw -

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I still find that many of these articles, wish just "raw facts", certainly do choose to emphasize certain ones.

They don't state what religion she was raised. They don't state whether or not her parents were very involved in her life. They don't state whether or not she likes titfucking. The writer very consciously picked certain facts to emphasize. Yes, it just so happens that those facts probably aren't very relevant to the murder, but the writer chose to include them anyway.

Someone in a state of such power (to have words published in a forum so widely read as the Washington Post) should recognize the awesome responsibility they have. Words need to be chosen carefully so as to not provoke the public into having racist attitudes against whatever it is at the moment. These people have a very real responsibility, to humankind, to not make the world a worse place. Was that the goal of the article? Probably not. But you shouldn't put someone in a position of power like that unless they're able to step back, look at their work, analyze it and honestly answer the question, "Does this provoke?" Or any of the other questions they should ask themselves before they publish a piece. Of course they're just words, and we fill in the blanks. But those blanks were irresponsibly created by the journalist in the first place.

[jaguar]

WHile you clearly see journos as having a huge responsability to do the ight thing i think at the same itme they WANT to provoke these things. Reinforcing someones predjuces makes htem feel vindicated and they're more liely to but that paper, feeding people bigoted ultraconcervative views sells papers.

[russotto]

Originally posted by Xugumad


there's something wrong with claiming that the music and movies had nothing to do with, for instance, the Columbine school shootings. Mental instability is just a cause; you can be a violent psychopath and go through life quite happily without ever being set off.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Sometimes, just the right amount of stimuli is needed; sometimes, schizophrenia requires a catalyst; sometimes, you need to see before you can do.

One of the Columbine killers wrote in his diary how they were going to execute people in the cafetaria, just "like in Doom or Duke" (I'm paraphrasing here)

Did he? There were a lot of similar claims about them that proved to be false. Still, even if he did, to misquote _Scream_ "Games don't make psychos kill, Games make psychos kill more creatively".

In any case, I have a more likely trigger for you: torture. Torture of the sort that goes on in just about every American high school there is.

A weak mind can be easily influenced by powerful lyrics and imagery in music and film. Books have persuaded people to kill in the name of <insert here> for eons; today's books provide the same stimulus, amplified a thousand times by the speed of the net, the special effects of ILM, the aural impact of surround sound, and the lyrical depth custom-tailored to its under-educated, attention-deprived, thrill-a-minute teenage target audience.

And even a strong mind can be broken by torture. A mind that is broken can turn to revenge at any cost. And such a broken mind can reach out for any information to help. But this is pull and not push; the information doesn't cause the problem, it is merely an instrument of it.

Yes. The media has contributed to the killings. Anyone with a basic understanding of how the human mind works can figure this out. 'Early profiling' of 'potential trouble-makers', as the educational system is attempting will most likely cause a lot more trouble than solve any issues.

Indeed it will. Because the way they'll find the troublemakers is by finding who is tortured the most. And then they'll torture them some more. And more will break.

of the story. The WP is usually quite liberal in their outlook. They wouldn't dream of actually editorializing that wiccan lifestyles, goth metal, or heavy internet usage cause murders;

Not on the EDITORIAL page, anyway.

[jaguar]

*claps*
damn good point rusotto, i think that was kinda where i was coming from with the idea of stronger social services etc

[Xugumad]

I submitted a 3-page reply explaining that current psychoanalyis doesn't think that you could turn into a _planning_ (serial) killer, like the Columbine ones, without being afflicted by _specific_ extroverted violent psychopathic derangements.

I explained that the vast majority of violent disorders are introverted, and that self-mutilation is very common, with manic depression being by far the most common mental disorder in the US.

I linked to Tony's posting in the 'hope for us all' thread to show that even if you went to hellmouth-like experiences in school, you don't *have* to turn violent against others in a lethal way. It's very unlikely, unless you suffer from specific mental disorders.

I then linked to
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/GoodMorn...k_feature.html
... and I tried to show that guns and media glorification of guns as well as the continuous portrayal of guns and violence as being a means of 'defense' quite possibly contributes to enhancing such psychopathic views of one's environment.

It took me 45 minutes to write.

I didn't have cookies turned on.

My browser ate it. I couldn't resubmit, 'Back' and the obligatory 'Refresh/Reload' gave me a blank submission box.

Sometimes I think I know what violent killers must feel like. Of course, I want to violently kill a monitor, but the only weapon in this house is that knotted rope that the dog is chewing on right now.. and she growled at me when I tried to grab it so I could swing it at the computer.

I also ate a Philly cheesesteak sandwich today, made in one of the southern states. My first proper philly cheesesteak, I think. It was incredible.

I think that's what ultimately separates the sane people from the insane ones. We realize that life is full of tasty sandwiches. They only see the empty wrappers.

X.