Media Terrorism

"... the media are part of the event, they are part of the terror.” - Jean Baudrillard

Of all the quotes we went over last class, this one stood out the most in my mind. Although this was written in the context of 9/11/2001, I find that this mindset is completely applicable to the rise in school shootings and other public acts of violence. It has become all too common for the media to showcase offenders (“terrorists”) to an almost glorifying extent, which is a large reason why these acts of violence have only become more common.

According to wikipedia, there have been over 150 school shootings/acts of gun violence since the horrific incident at Columbine in 1999.  According to an article by thinkprogress.org, “the rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders” (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/). Furthermore, the frequency of these catastrophes has only increased, largely because of the exposure from the media.

I think one of the most relevant cases of the media glorifying a “terrorist” was the response to the Boston Marathon bomber. Not only were his face and name constantly presented to the public, but months after the attack, the Rolling Stone released a feature story on his life complete with a cover photo. The most controversial aspect about was that Rolling Stone used photos that showcased the bomber humanity and vulnerability, almost presenting him as a victim of society. Furthermore, the caption on the cover of that issue read “how a popular, promising student was failed by his family, fell into radical Islam and became a monster.” I mean, come on… I understand the roll that family plays in one’s development, but a caption like this literally puts the blame on exclusively exterior factors, rather than holding him, as a member of society, accountable for his actions.

Many people compared this story and its presentation to the Charles Manson story that Rolling Stone published in 1970. I believe this thought process is extremely ignorant because with any analyzation one can see that the Boston Bomber was presented much more as a victim of the times. The issue that featured the Manson article also made the cover, but Charles Manson was presented much differently with a caption that read "The incredible story of the most dangerous man alive." A similar caption would have also worked for the Boston Bomber.

Furthermore, the photo on this cover evokes no sympathy from the reader, unlike the portrayal of the Boston Bomber.