Ignorance and Confusion

This was started 16Jan18, right before the “LVMPD Investigative Report” came to my attention. The fact that the publication of this report on 1Oct17 failed to make any major headlines only highlights the points I was attempting to make with this blog post. As for why I did not finish this post can only be blamed on my attention being spread too thin at the time. In all honesty, I had thought that I had posted this; recent discussions on the state of the media brought me back to this unfinished and unposted blog…    

Some of my best ideas come to mind while I am driving – a recurring theme for those readers who have been steadily following this blog. During today’s commute, two ideas sat heavily on my mind and could not be entirely shaken – the “sins of omission” by the media, and the similarities between the challenges faced by communities within the United States.

What happened to the Las Vegas shooting investigation?

This idea popped into my head last night, and I willingly took the most commonly-tread path on the internet to learn of any new developments: Wikipedia.

123 references (at the time of writing this blog) are a lot to go through, so I chose the first and last five to look at a bit more in detail. The results were unsurprising, really. Other than two minor exceptions, there were no PDF’s linking any official studies, reports, investigations, or other documents, other than the occasional link to a study of media usage of social media and the level of trust in “government, business, media and NGO’s.”

Hyperlinks, if any were included, often led in a circular pattern of self-reference (oddly enough, The Guardian nearly beat me to this post by pointing out examples of “evidence-free” reporting, but the article fell victim of the same cyclic habit).

Out of curiosity, I looked at other Wikipedia entries for similar shootings:

Sutherland Springs church shooting (2017) – 93 references with several interesting links to news articles on hoaxes, “fake news,” and conspiracies.

Orlando nightclub shooting (2016) – 303 references, mostly news articles, but with a few solid “External links” supporting additional research.

2015 San Bernardino attack – 293 references, again more news articles, but with an interesting review of the incident buried three links deep.

Washington Navy Yard shooting (2013) – 84 references and no links to any official reports.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012) – 247 references, however, much more usage of reports/.gov websites (at least four) and an external link to the actual report.

The list can, would, and unfortunately probably will go on…

The point of this post is not to crucify Wikipedia or the media over the coverage of these tragedies. Rather, I found it interesting to see a closed routine of how the distribution of information on these events can be somewhat fascinating.

As I stated before, Wikipedia is a common source of information on a variety of topics. At times thorough and relatively accurate, depending on the motivations of whomever posts and edits the articles, Wikipedia condenses for ready consumption of the average person. As a result of the commodification of information, Wikipedia is dismissed as an acceptable source in academic research; Wikipedia itself has become its own worst enemy.

It is difficult for me to be entirely judgmental of the media at times. In 2015, the New Yorker published a fascinating, yet dark, article which investigated the motivations and thought processes behind the would-be school shooter, John LaDue. Waseca, Minnesota luckily escaped being added to the growing list of national tragedies, and but for this one instance the small town is fortunate to be forgotten by the rest of the US. What I find interesting, however, is the fact that this one article chronicled the broken ideology of damaged young men with evil hearts and looked at how they all used the media as a template and source of inspiration.

LaDue’s words were chilling and indicative of two major problems – the coverage of such events and the methods by which the subsequent perpetrators would improve upon to gain more notoriety:

“…I would detonate when people were fleeing, just like the Boston bombings…”

“My number one idol is Eric Harris… I think I just see myself in him.”

“He was even more scathing about the Boston bombers’ use of pressure-cooker bombs. He thought they made a ‘crappy design of it.’”

Here is the dilemma: these events are news, and worthy of circulation; at the same time the circulation of these events is “news” for most and “lightbulbs” for others. The failing of the news, in my opinion, is their cyclic narrative they push. These stories become politicized because of their tragedy and not scrutinized for a means to arrive at an agreed-upon course of action for prevention. Predictably, the headlines are bold in both font and emotion for a few weeks, the cries for more control are answered with statements of the controls in place which failed, and eventually, both the reporters and their audiences move on to more controversy to debate.

By omitting a calm, rational, and logical appraisal of the problem of gun violence by the “few”, the media paints the “many” much like they have categorized other elements of our society:

“When an attack happens, it impacts our community just as much as anyone.”

“When we start marginalizing a specific community that community or that group becomes susceptible to radicalization.”

“Sometimes we fail to understand or see that a lot of them have never met us they only know of us from what they see in in the media.”

“You really have to keep an open mind and understand that they don’t know more than what they’re seeing in the media.”

The speaker was Angie Gad, a first-generation Egyptian-American Muslim, on John Little’s podcast “Covert Contact” from 23Oct17. Her words could easily be spoken to any moderate on the wrong end of the media’s outrage, though. The power of critical labels assigned by a biased and partial media not only has the power to turn public opinion in a manner which favors whatever end of the political spectrum the news outlet gravitates towards. These labels can distort their own message and become self-perpetuating as they create more fear, anger, and hate… which, of course, leads to suffering.

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI)

Earlier in the post, I said that my point is “not to crucify Wikipedia or the media,” yet I have managed to do exactly that, it seems.

The responsibility, as always, lies with the consumer – not the producer.

I cannot solve the problems of what people read, nor can I (or would I) tell them what to think. I have written a lot about my thoughts on things:

I’ve looked at a comparison with the 18^th Amendment and recent trends at gun control here…

I’ve been critical of the ignorance and dangers of legislating looking backwards here…

I’ve broken down my list of concerns here…

And I have even elaborated on a slow-burning epiphany (which still has yet to get any traction) here…

While these are what I lamented at the beginning – cyclic links back to stuff I wrote – the big difference is that the only emotional response I am looking for is simple:

“Hm…”