In the immediate aftermath of the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, CT some people thought the news media coverage of the event was overkill, if not completely invasive.
There was criticism of cable TV networks for interviewing kids coming out of the school following the massacre, and incorrect information was reported in the hours immediately following the news breaking.
But others argue that it’s the job of the news media to be aggressive in telling these stories, and that the misinformation was only the results of erroneous information provide by officials.
How would you rate the media coverage of the of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings? Tell us in comments.
as other tim .. yeah.. but in the case of the wackjobs in norway and newtown .. logistically it's kind hard to stab 69 or 26 people to death .. before some group of people getb together and open a large economy can of whup-ass...
also .. there are laws in many states to prevent street side dispensers of fuel to to put more than five gallons into anything other than fuel filler pipes .. also .. many stations use kerosene rathers than fuel oil .. especially in nothern climes where diesel gets thick and ooky below a certian ambient temp ..it destroys the diesel engine ...
mental health counseling isn't cheap .. many health care policies either don't cover it or have high co-pays/deductibles .. and .. the patient has to be agreeable to treatmewnt ... oh, and thwen was that story that mommy was seeking commital of adam .. also .. the father did not want to comment .. as for the interviews.... one of the things that is advised by trauma counselors for victims of psychological stress .. talk it out ..I've been there done that .. buddies of mine cops and firefighters after fatal incidents .. and another friend who had a PTSD flashback from a vietnam war battlefield incident ..as for the "circus" ,, getr real, it was a breaking news event .. with constantly changing updates ..it was multiple stories ..the victms..the survivors.. the shooter .. the first reponders... and the pro and anti-gunners ..the political reactions ...
"Some, like Lanza may even be thinking they are playing a Video Game." Way to jump on the "blame the video game" bandwagon. Do you even research this stuff? There is no conclusive evidence that video games cause negative changes in behavior or personality; any correlation is simply that and what changes are observed are not reliable applied to long-term development. Also, could you please explain how violent video games caused the following... Bath School Disaster (1927) Ying Leung (1928) Midnight Massacre (1945) Howard Unruh (1949) Charles Starkweather (1958) Highway 101 Sniper (1965) Charles Whitman (1966) North Hills Shooting (1972) William Bonner (1973) Russell Lee Smith (1975) Brampton Centennial Shooting (1975) Fullerton Massacre (1976)
"Research into violent video games (VVGs) is primarily conducted by psychologists in the United States. It takes place in a controversial political context of free speech disputes and school shootings. Much of this research has shown that playing VVGs is a small to moderate risk factor in later aggressive behaviour, at least in the short-term. However, over the course of this review a number of problems emerged with these findings that reduce their policy relevance. Critics have pointed to the difficulties of defining and measuring the violent content of video games. Researchers have not devoted sufficient attention to the question of severity of violent content (eg, cartoonish violence vs realistic violence) and whether it has differing effects. Some studies appear to show games featuring cartoonish violence are just as harmful as games featuring realistic violence. It is not known whether socially acceptable violence (such as in the course of playing sports) has a different effect to antisocial violence."
There is some consensus in the research that some members of the community, such as people with psychotic personality traits, may be more affected by VVGs than others. However, there is mixed evidence as to whether VVGs have a greater impact on children."" A number of other findings of this review arguably reduce the policy relevance of VVG research. There is stronger evidence of short-term VVG effects than of long-term effects. The possibility that third variables (like aggressive personality, family and peer influence, socio-economic status) are behind the effect has not been well explored. Researchers who argue that VVGs cause aggression have not engaged with or disproved alternative theories propagated by their critics. There is little evidence that violent video games have a greater impact than other violent media. In conclusion, research into the effects of VVGs on aggression is contested and inconclusive."
http://www.snjv.org/data/document/school-and-violence.pdf The conclusions are not the same. "THE RESEARCH ON VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Speculation regarding the potential link between violent video games and school shooting events is not limited to politicians and media ‘talking heads’. Indeed, several scholars have explicitly linked academic research on violent video games with school shooting incidents (Anderson, 2004; Anderson & Dill, 2000). Bushman and Anderson (2002) suggest that even the 9/11 terrorist attacks are relevant to the media violence debate. Is there a basis for this generalisation, however? " The issue is by far a settled one but any links must be a part of this conversation. Just as the 38% of ALL MURDERS by ONE demographic group in the country, mostly with handguns, must also be part of this conversation.
There are so many more benefits to video gaming over television - but as with anything else, keeping reasonable balance in one's life is goal #1. I've been a lifelong gamer really, but everyone's surprised when/if I do mention it.
there's nuts in this wqorld and even though they might denied a trigger .. sooner or later thgey'll blast off .. by the way .. what exactly was the violent media trigger that got Vlad the Impaler and Jack the Ripper going??
IF you had even read what I posted you would have read this "The issue is by far a settled one but any links must be a part of this conversation." I made no claims one way or the other. Just showed the results of a few studies.
That said, I do agree with your summary above. I honestly feel gaming is much better for you as a person then watching the same amount of television. You develop all sorts of skills you can apply to sports, work, and outside life if you choose to apply them. As with anything though, finding the balance is the key. If you are a parent, you need to foster that balance in your children. As an online/MMO gamer myself many evenings, I am acutely aware of the multitudes of people of all ages who allow online life to replace real life - many times for no good reason. Marraiges get wrecked, jobs get lost, children don't get properly parented, etc. In Lanza's case, I can honestly understand why he would resort to online games. This was NOT a normal kid and it wasn't his fault he was born how he was. This was a progressive parental failure on his mother's fault that she only, at the last minute (so to speak) recognized. Let's remember, if she didn't have the advanced weaponry IN THEIR HOUSE, Lanza likely wouldn't have access to anything more then perhaps a handgun.
Yet when the great earthquake/tsunami and subsequent Fukushima meltdown occurred, you saw what the Japanese people were made of. Made me embarassed to be an American honestly, comparing how they dealt with disaster compared to, let's say, Katrina here.