Murder for attention

[Gerald_II]

@Marley23

From the little I’ve read, what happened in California this week wasn’t about attention. It was about revenge. A lunatic thought he’d been insulted, so he got revenge on the people who he felt had wronged him.

I think it’s interesting, from what I’ve read about it, that the murderer made so many public youtube videos about himself, and wrote pages and pages about his loneliness and sent it out to family and friends before committing his crime. Sounds to me he wanted attention as well.

Define “sensationalize” or “glorify,” please. Unfortunately it has kind of an ‘I know it when I see it’ quality that doesn’t make for consistent standards. I do think coverage of these things usually gets excessive in a hurry, but that’s more about volume than tone.

sen·sa·tion·al·ism [sen-sey-shuh-nl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.
2.
the use of or interest in this subject matter, language, or style: The cheap tabloids relied on sensationalism to increase their circulation.
3.
Philosophy .
a.
the doctrine that the good is to be judged only by the gratification of the senses.
b.
the doctrine that all ideas are derived from and are essentially reducible to sensations.

[QUOTE=well regarded news organizations]

UCSB shooting update: Suspect son of “Hunger Games” assistant director

Alleged Santa Barbara shooter: “I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you”

[/QUOTE]

That can be just as awful because it turns exploitative and manipulative while giving us no insight into what happened.

You can give insight without plastering the murderers photo everywhere and without resorting to lurid, equally exploitative headlines. You can give respect to the victims by simply acknowledging them individually and some information as to who they are so they’re not simply a number in a headline.

No, they didn’t. They used a photo other outlets had already printed and wrote a really good story about how a relatively normal teenager kid wound up being a murderous terrorist.

I don’t know for sure, and neither do you. However, I think it’s naive on your part to rule out the possibility that they went with that particular picture in mind in order to appeal to a certain demographic. The picture of him at his graduation ceremony seemed much more appropriate for the article you assume I didn’t read.

[Marley23]

I know the dictionary definition of sensationalism, Gerald II. I am asking you for some kind of practical guideline that lets us decide what kind of news coverage and tone is sensationalistic and what’s justified and acceptable. I think if you try you might find it’s not so easily done.

@Gerald_II

I think it’s interesting, from what I’ve read about it, that the murderer made so many public youtube videos about himself, and wrote pages and pages about his loneliness and sent it out to family and friends before committing his crime. Sounds to me he wanted attention as well.

We may be going into a sinkhole here, but I don’t know that wanting attention is the same thing as wanting his (crazy) grievances to be understood. The Virginia Tech shooter wanted attention. This guy felt he’d been hurt and done wrong and he wanted people to know about it. It’s not quite the same thing, I think, even though it’s all horrible.

You can give insight without plastering the murderers photo everywhere and without resorting to lurid, equally exploitative headlines.

Yes, you can. I think you’re insisting there is a firmer dividing line than there really is.

You can give respect to the victims by simply acknowledging them individually and some information as to who they are so they’re not simply a number in a headline.

It’s pretty easy to find stuff like that. Like I said, coverage of the victims of a public tragedy can become exploitative in its own way.

I don’t know for sure, and neither do you.

You said with total certainty that you did know!

However, I think it’s naive on your part to rule out the possibility that they went with that particular picture in mind in order to appeal to a certain demographic.

Oh, now you’re merely saying it’s possible. How about that. I think it’s despicable to disregard the publication’s stated reasons and its reporting and the fact that no less than the New York Times had already run the very same photo in order to say some awful things about their motives. Further, I think it’s shady to make concrete assertions about someone and then back down to “well, you don’t know that I’m wrong” when you’re called on it. If you can say why they ran the photo, so can I. If I can’t, then you can’t either. I’m comfortable with the reasoning Rolling Stone gave the public when they explained why they used that photo. Other people differed, but their reasons were often garbage. If you’re speculating, be honest about it.

The picture of him at his graduation ceremony seemed much more appropriate for the article you assume I didn’t read.

It’s just not as good a photo, especially since they would have had to crop it dramatically to cut out his friend.

[Gerald_II]

Matt Taibbi made wrote an interesting response to the criticism of the Rolling Stone cover that is worth reading. Overall though, I found some parts of it to be disingenuous while highlighting the more ridiculous claims by critics ("[Rolling Stone] done a sexy photo shoot for Tsarnaev" and “posed him like Jim Morrison.”) in order to lend credence to his own defense of the cover.

[Marley23]

Claims which are very similar to the ones you made two posts ago.

[Gerald_II]

@Marley23

You said with total certainty that you did know!

You’re right, I’m the one that asserted, unknowingly, it was for one particular reason, and you countered with your own unknowable assertion.

Oh, now you’re merely saying it’s possible. How about that. I think it’s despicable to disregard the publication’s stated reasons and its reporting and the fact that no less than the New York Times had already run the very same photo in order to say some awful things about their motives.

You are right, I shouldn’t have said Not only did they put one of the Boston marathon bomber on the cover but they purposely used a photo that made him look like a rock musician. They want to sell magazines by romanticizing the image of a murderer.

However, you are completely ignoring the idea of context as well as Rolling Stone’s own history of controversial covers. If Rolling Stone ran Justin Bieber’s smiling mugshot on it’s cover I would be just as critical of it regardless of whether or not the Los Angeles Times used the same photo as well.

Not to mention that the NY Times is daily publication whereas Rolling Stone put out an issue every month so much more thought goes into the latter’s cover making decisions. Also, Rolling Stone covers are known to be much more iconic and long remembered than whatever is on the NY Times front page. I can’t even remember a distinctive NY Times cover. Rolling Stone though? Off top Janet Jackson having someone hold her breasts, naked John and Yoko, Marilyn Manson “The incredible story of the world’s most dangerous man”, Jim Morrison, and Tupac Shakur.

Further, I think it’s shady to make concrete assertions about someone and then back down to “well, you don’t know that I’m wrong” when you’re called on it.

You are right.

If you can say why they ran the photo, so can I.

You can, but why do that if you’re criticizing me when I do it?

I’m comfortable with the reasoning Rolling Stone gave the public when they explained why they used that photo.

I’m not comfortable with it, and it’s less believable after reading Taibbi’s article about it.

It’s just not as good a photo, especially since they would have had to crop it dramatically to cut out his friend.

They would have to crop it, but not dramatically. It works equally as well as the photo they went with, composition-wise. I just did it in Photoshop and it works very well and goes better with the “promising student” blurb. If I have time I’ll try to post it.

[Gerald_II]

I will link the Taibbi article. Link here

[Marley23]

We’re getting off topic here. Maybe we can drag this back to sensationalism as a concept.

@Gerald_II

You’re right, I’m the one that asserted, unknowingly, it was for one particular reason, and you countered with your own unknowable assertion.

My opinion includes some facts. Yours was based purely on your opinions about their intentions. That does matter.

If Rolling Stone ran Justin Bieber’s smiling mugshot on it’s cover I would be just as critical of it regardless of whether or not the Los Angeles Times used the same photo as well.

What would be criticizing? Anyway that’s a bad comparison because Bieber’s travails usually aren’t hard news, and the bombings were hard news.

Not to mention that the NY Times is daily publication whereas Rolling Stone put out an issue every month so much more thought goes into the latter’s cover making decisions.

…So it was OK for the Times to use the photo because they probably didn’t think about it too much? Come on. This makes no sense.

Also, Rolling Stone covers are known to be much more iconic and long remembered than whatever is on the NY Times front page. I can’t even remember a distinctive NY Times cover. Rolling Stone though? Off top Janet Jackson having someone hold her breasts, naked John and Yoko, Marilyn Manson “The incredible story of the world’s most dangerous man”, Jim Morrison, and Tupac Shakur.

Yes, I know Rolling Stone has done some iconic covers. But you just named six covers out of 1,200, and only one of them is from the last decade. Most of them were from the '60s and '70s, and that’s not a coincidence because the magazine had a lot more cultural capital back then. Can you tell me who is on the current cover? I don’t have a clue because by definition they can’t all be iconic. And if they can put Manson on the cover I don’t know why they can’t do the same with Tsarnaev. The Manson image seemed a lot iffier, to me, and it wasn’t even a photo.

I’m not comfortable with it, and it’s less believable after reading Taibbi’s article about it.

I’m not sure why that’s the case.

They would have to crop it, but not dramatically. It works equally as well as the photo they went with, composition-wise.

They would have to cut out almost half the photo, and yes, it’s just not as interesting an image because most of it is taken up by the black robe and the bleachers in the background.

@Gerald_II

I will link the Taibbi article. Link here

I read it at the time, and I read it again before posting.

[Gerald_II]

@Marley23

My opinion includes some facts. Yours was based purely on your opinions about their intentions. That does matter.

True. Re-reading what you said about that was about as factual as it can be. Other news outlets did run that photo.

What would be criticizing? Anyway that’s a bad comparison because Bieber’s travails usually aren’t hard news, and the bombings were hard news.

Yeah, bad comparison and hypothetical. What I’m trying to say though is that Rolling Stone features hard news stories and yet the vast majority of the time the cover image is rarely ever about it. I think the only time I can remember seeing a non-entertainment cover was the Mitt Romney-Bain connection and Obama on the cover. Other times, big stories like “The Biggest Price Fixing Scandal Ever”? Bruno Mars is on the cover. College Loan Scandal story features a Macklemore cover.

…So it was OK for the Times to use the photo because they probably didn’t think about it too much? Come on. This makes no sense.

Not okay but I can’t use the comparison of a daily newspapers rush to publish whatever is available to them in regards to the story compared to a magazine that takes much more time in developing their covers and tries to appeal to a particular, younger demographic.

Can you tell me who is on the current cover? I don’t have a clue because by definition they can’t all be iconic.

The guy from HIMYM is on the current cover naked, with a hat covering his dick. Before that I think it was Julia Louis Dreyfus, naked, with the US constitution tattooed on her back. I can also think of Bruno Mars smoking a cigarette, Katie Perry and the Hershey Kiss outfit, Snooki straddling a rocket, Lil Wayne wearing a hat, Lil Wayne going to Jail, Miley Cyrus…
May or may not all be iconic in the long run but I remember them. I can’t say the same for a NY Times cover.

And it’s not just one aspect but the combination of all these things in context.

And if they can put Manson on the cover I don’t know why they can’t do the same with Tsarnaev. The Manson image seemed a lot iffier, to me, and it wasn’t even a photo.

I said Marilyn when I should have said Charles. But yeah, I would also have criticized that image at the time especially with the tag line beneath his name. I think the media, not just Rolling Stone helped play up the popularity and myth of Charles Manson.

I’m not sure why that’s the case.

I’ll try and post up some better argued and hopefully more eloquent critiques of the article later instead of some of the rash assumptions I initially made.

They would have to cut out almost half the photo, and yes, it’s just not as interesting an image because most of it is taken up by the black robe and the bleachers in the background.

I read it at the time, and I read it again before posting.

That link set off my antivirus so be careful.

Anyway, yes they would have cut out almost half the photo which was NOT of Tsarnaev. I don’t see why cropping a part of photo that’s unneeded would be a hardship and a problem. The black robe would probably be important because it shows he’s graduating and going somewhere with his life, signifying he was a promising student in a educational setting. If it’s more important to solely highlight his good looks than yeah, the photo they went with is much more interesting, and more in line with their other covers.

[Gerald_II]

Youtube video discussing Rolling Stone’s coverhere

One guy makes a claim, like I did, without facts. But the guy with the facial hair makes some good points.

[Gerald_II]

@Marley23

We’re getting off topic here. Maybe we can drag this back to sensationalism as a concept.

Having a headline highlighting the murderers connection to entertainment, in particular the Hungar Games starring Jennifer Lawrence.

Lurid headlines featuring quotes like “I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering you all.”

I find this interesting:

The Virginia Tech shooter wanted attention. This guy felt he’d been hurt and done wrong and he wanted people to know about it. It’s not quite the same thing, I think, even though it’s all horrible.

I think they’re very similar. I don’t think what happened in Isla Vista was purely about revenge, because the same could be said about what about happened at Virginia Tech. That guy also felt he had been wronged some how. Didn’t he also have a hard time getting women?