(no subject)
Apr. 17th, 2007 14:02![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
darkfyre_museI feel a lot like ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jazzfish today. I can't wrap my brain around the senseless waste of it all. Yet I am 3000 miles and a lifetime away from Tech. So it seems less real. Today more real as I started to place faces with the victims. Oddly I was significantly more upset about Columbine. Why? Media exposure. I worked yesterday and do not have TV at home anymore. So the only exposure I had was the written word. And as most of you know written news is usually less sensationalised and more to the point than TV coverage. Leading to the question what is the value of sensationalised, extended coverage of these type of things. I think it definitely increases the emotional response. However, it also imparts a greater level of fear. I also remember feeling that the repeated coverage seemed to cheapen the event, turn tragedy into a profit oppurtunity. Where is the middle ground? The point where the media inspires empathy but, stops short of trivializing events into a media frenzy. Maybe by restricting coverage to PBS? I don't know. I am neither a journalist nor an ethicist to make such a judgment.
jazzfish today. I can't wrap my brain around the senseless waste of it all. Yet I am 3000 miles and a lifetime away from Tech. So it seems less real. Today more real as I started to place faces with the victims. Oddly I was significantly more upset about Columbine. Why? Media exposure. I worked yesterday and do not have TV at home anymore. So the only exposure I had was the written word. And as most of you know written news is usually less sensationalised and more to the point than TV coverage. Leading to the question what is the value of sensationalised, extended coverage of these type of things. I think it definitely increases the emotional response. However, it also imparts a greater level of fear. I also remember feeling that the repeated coverage seemed to cheapen the event, turn tragedy into a profit oppurtunity. Where is the middle ground? The point where the media inspires empathy but, stops short of trivializing events into a media frenzy. Maybe by restricting coverage to PBS? I don't know. I am neither a journalist nor an ethicist to make such a judgment.
