President Obama is now agreed to do the same. One of the tragic victims who died so heroically, protecting his girlfriend, Alex Teves' father, Tom Teves, is arguing the same way, that we glorify this man by talking about him too much.
"We learned a few things on Monday night, those of us watching Anderson Cooper on "AC360," about Alex Teves, one of the people who died in the gunfire at theater 9 in the Century 16 multiplex in Aurora, Colorado. We learned that in high school, "for no reason whatever," as his father put it, Alex always wore white T-shirts and blue jeans, and that one day some 400 to 500 kids from the school wore the same outfit, declaring an unofficial "Alex Teves Day."
"We got to meet Alex's best friend, Ryan Cooper, who spoke about how people were "drawn to him." And his girlfriend, Amanda Lindgren, who told us, among other things, about the last act of Alex's life, which in some ways is all you need to know: He dove across her body to protect her from the bullets."
Everything tells us that in the loss of young Alex Teves, we lost a very special person. It is such a tragedy that we are deprived of ever knowing him. As Diary of the Republican commentator, Edward, put it
"Amazing, I only wish my end could be that honorable and heroic as those men.
Let women across America take note. Chivalry still lives"
Let women across America take note. Chivalry still lives"
Who can even imagine the pain his father, Tom Teves is going through? How can we but honor and heed his words?
"Perhaps most painfully, we met Tom Teves, the father of Alex, a likeable, visibly hurt man. He said, when Cooper asked how he was holding up: "It's the worst day of my life every day. Alex was my firstborn son. I love him with all my heart."
"Teves had something to say to the news media, too, something impossible to ignore: "And if we don't stop talking about the gunman -- so somebody took a gun and went in and shot a 6-year-old girl? Why are we talking about that person?"
"He went on: "I would like to see CNN come out with a policy that said, 'Moving forward, we're not going to talk about the gunman. What we're going to say is: A coward walked into a movie theater and started shooting people. He's apprehended. The coward's in jail. He will never see the light of day again. Let's move on'... CNN, Fox News, the major networks. Why don't you guys all come out with a policy that says, we're not going to show this [killer] again? That would be my -- that would be my challenge to you and to every network."
Nevertheless, argues the journalist, Mike Hoyt:
"As compelling and tempting as his plea is, I would argue that Teves is only half right."
"Like Teves, many people suspect that some sort of media glory is part of the payoff for these mass killers. And that seems plausible. But the truth of the matter is we don't have a clue. Nor do we have an idea if some sort of media blackout about them would have any effect in preventing this type of incident from occurring again."
We really don't. I for one doubt that the desire for fame was the chief thing in Holmes' case. I don't think that mass killers like this do it for the fame-though admittedly it varies. Obviously the Columbine high school style killers don't do it for fame but revenge and also to stop their own pain as they often kill themselves after killing many others. I'm very skeptical that not talking about this or not using his name would somehow be a significant deterrent.
More importantly, I think there is a public right and need to know:
"Nearly three quarters of the nation has been following it "very" or "fairly" closely, according to Pew Research Center. Still, if mass shootings weren't big news, you would worry. James Holmes' face, meanwhile, made it to a number of front pages in the wake of the massacre, as shown in Newseum's Today's Front Page feature, but not as often or as large as you might think. And you did want to know what he looked like, didn't you? Even Tom Teves went to court to see his face."
"News outlets should never glorify killers in any way. In the chance that being on television and across the front pages could be a draw to killers, the news media must err on the side of caution in its coverage. The prime focus should be properly on the victims. And, I would add, on the victims' friends and families, who tell us so movingly that they will remember. As Teves said, "You know, Alex would have expected us to live. We're going to live." To report that kind of love and guts is essential."
"Still, when something like this happens, we are, as a society, like a tribe discussing the events around the campfire. Reporters are something like the tribal scouts. There are wolves, and we have questions: How many wolves? How do they act? Which way should we go?"
I think Hoyt, is right. The answer isn't simply trying to sit on the story. In truth what we need is more dialogue, not less. I'm pretty skeptical of this idea that by not talking about it, we'll have fewer killers. What is more likely to prevent more of these is to try to get at the root of why this keeps happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment