A controversial argument I’m sure and the author makes some logical leaps without fully backing it up.
But at it’s core there is a very good point. Our society takes a semi prurient interest in this sort of thing and we generally do feel oh so much better after we’ve pointed out what was wrong.… whether we really change anything.
We also have a media that has adapted to get maximum publicity and profit from these sorts of disasters.
Embedded Link
Why We Won’t Stop Mass Killings: We Like Them Too Much | Econ201 | Big Think
Forgive me if I’ve already offended you with the title of this piece, but I’m an economist. As such, I tend to weigh up the costs and benefits of just about anything when trying to figure out what it …
Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+
The writer makes some very sad but valid points.
The media made a bit of money off this tragedy. As did the gun manufacturers — when those who fear their guns might get taken away went running with their credit cards & cash to the gun stores.
I sometimes wonder if money wasn’t the motivator for the media how different our world would look and feel.
Heck if we got rid of money as a society would we then care more about our fellow humans and less about competing with them to have more stuff?
It’s all very interesting to ponder. Thank you for sharing this intriguing article.
I read an article recently (if you’re interested I’ll dig thru my browser history to find it) that showed self-righteous anger activates many of the same areas of the brain as feel-good drugs. People are literally getting high on their own self-righteous anger. So this article may not be far from the truth. However, I’d be more apt to believe it if the writer were a psychologist rather than a self-described economist…
Money is just a stand in for stuff +Debra Roberts. Take away money and we still want the stuff.
That would make sense to me +Traci Loudin.
The pro gun people got really self righteous in my part of the woods. The hate/paranoia about “others” and the arrogance about being a gun owner spewing from my co-workers was appalling. And if they actually heard the words they were using they might be stunned at themselves.
It was a lot like they were high on something. And it makes sense that the brain would boost serotonin and adrenalin because of the fight or flight response of seeing it non-stop on the media. Interesting and that makes sense to me.
+Debra Roberts It would be interesting to see a world where the media wasn’t driven by the money behind sensationalism. It seems awful hard to come by, but it’d be interesting nonetheless.
I suspect the “high” from sensationalism isn’t really restricted to any one side of the arguments surrounding these events. In my part of the country being a gun owner is pretty much the norm. I’ve heard worry from folks who see gun rights as an important part of themselves and a lot of “get them while you can” talk, but I think the people who are probably “riding high” off the uproar are probably gun opponents.
I’ve seen gun opponents outright attack gun owners, accusing them of “getting what they want” and so forth… always with that gleam in their eye that tells me they’ve been wanting to say it in the past but haven’t gotten enough of a rush to break through their inhibitions. There’s probably a chemical high behind it. I’d imagine a lot of them would be a bit stunned if they stopped for a moment and let it sink in how they were really accusing their neighbors and coworkers.
You’ve got a very valid point +Gabriel Cooper. I’m sure those who wanted to speak up now had the adrenalin laced courage to do it as well. I just didn’t see that perspective too much. I live in a gun lovin area of the country too. Around here “if you don’t have a pick up truck and a gun you just aren’t a man.” And that’s damn near a direct quote from several of my male co-workers.
You know — it’s interesting because this news event really got me thinking about how much the media has changed and where our future of media information is going to be. The reports coming from all the major news sources got information wrong in the first day — name of the shooter, how many were involved, etc — There is such a competition to be the first one with the story — sometimes I wonder if it’s not better to hear the story a day later you know? Once more facts are available . Really the only people that NEEDED the info right away were those folks in that community or people who know folks in that community. The rest of us did not absolutely need to know the whole story right away, you know?
It’s curious to me that we can now share information with each other lightening quick and yet it’s hard to keep a personal filter up that says ‘ok — is this real? truthful? accurate? am I seeing all sides of the story before I pass judgement or is this just someones opinion? or is this just marketing to get me to buy something? I really wonder how our way of getting information is going to effect our society going forward.
I suppose I understand certain pieces of their twisted sentiment. I feel that being able to defend your neighbors and children when necessary is part of being a responsible adult. Not a responsible man, mind you, a responsible adult. I think the first person I ever said that to was my 13 year old daughter when she was asking me about the Sandy Hook shooting and, while I didn’t mention guns, the idea of being appropriately armed was present in the conversation as much as always being aware of your surroundings, knowing who needed your help in an emergency, and knowing how to get away quickly.
I agree that the media was far too quick to jump on this story and they are doing far too much to breed new killings. I don’t need to know the guy’s name ever, let alone while there’s still a police cordon around the scene. It should not be not the media’s job to assign and publicize guilt or blame while the situation is still occurring, and it’s certainly not their job to publicize how easy it is for mentally afflicted people to get on TV.
In my opinion, all they really did by bringing it out so quickly was make it clear to other lost, hurting people that it’s easy to end your life with a statement heard around the world. The media made it clear that all they have to do is break a lock on their local school and they have access to a nice, gun free playground full of victims mostly incapable of defending themselves. The coverage portrayed it more or less as a live stage for the world to watch, a place where ending a life of mental anguish became something important instead of just another day alone.
It’s no wonder psychos do this in schools — the whole world reads their suicide message before their body is even cold. They go right from their mom’s basement to live TV, parents’ nightmares, criminology textbooks, and the halls of congress.
My opinions on guns and gun ownership aren’t exactly a secret and I’ve covered them thoroughly in other posts.
But the key point here is that not only does the media make it worse, but often our reaction to the media makes it worse still.
I couldn’t agree with you more +Gabriel Cooper