Irresponsible media
I was appauled when the first headline naming the VT gunman on the BBC News website said he was S Korean. BBC has since changed the headline, but Google still shows the original headline in the search query:
I find not only the initial headline, but the whole idea of mentioning the original nationality of the gunman completely irresponsible journalism. I studied Journalism for about 6 years, including all 4 years of high school, and a degree in Journalism/Advertising. I have profound respect for the journalistic process, but journalism seems to be more about entertainment than unbiased reporting.
If the gunman had been white or black, would it have been as big of a deal? And if the gunman were a gunwoman (which technically isn’t even a word like gunman), would it be a bigger deal? Sure, it’s a fact, but it creates an undue negative impression that could potentially lead to racial violence.
Also, please, please, please, stop reffering to it as the biggest shooting in U.S. history. It doesn’t in anyway affect the outcome of this tragedy, it only endangers more people. Let historians make that call after we’ve healed.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I was watching a segment on MSNBC online right after the shooting. The new reporter (or sensationalism reporter) asked a student who had just been shot if the gunman was “black . . . or had a ethnicity!!!” I kid you not. Total racism. Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? No one focused on the fact that the bomber was a white man and part of a radical religous cult. But anytime a non-white person does anything violent the first thing that is focused upon is the ethnicity or “race” and religion. The guys that brought their guns to Columbine weren’t described as “white” they were described as “troubled.” WTF! I agree with you - this stuff is truly truly messed up.