In the wake of the deadly school shooting in Newtown this past week, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the Second Amendment. There has not, unfortunately, been a reevaluation of the role the First Amendment played in the tragedy.
The media’s coverage of Newtown from the outset was marred by such complete incompetence that it’s almost impossible to keep track of every incorrect detail that on-air personalities told viewers in the first few hours. Initially, Americans were informed: there were two gunmen and that one was still at large; the shooter was a father of one of the students in the school; the father of the shooter was dead; the shooter was named Ryan, not Adam, Lanza; an entire kindergarten class was unaccounted for; it was kindergarteners, not 1st-graders, that were the primary target; the classroom of the shooter’s mother was targeted, and that was where she died. The shooter’s unconfirmed autism diagnosis was discussed by multiple outlets as a possible contributing factor to the shooting, yet what was never mentioned was that those that fall on the autism spectrum are not any more likely to exhibit planned violent tendencies than the average member of the public.
After the Aurora shootings, Helen Lewis wrote about how the media had failed to follow the advice of forensic psychologists on how to prevent individuals from trying to “best” the latest tragedy. That advice has clearly not been heeded after this latest mass shooting, either. Since the massacre of 20 children and six adults, the coverage on major news outlets has been unrelenting. Six-year-old witnesses were interviewed, grieving family members have been harassed by the press online, outside their homes and even at religious services. The manner in which the shootings have been covered (24/7, wall-to-wall and sensationalist are adjectives that spring to mind) has been criticized by experts concerned about copycats.
I’m not suggesting that either of these amendments be repealed or curtailed, the First or the Second. If Americans are sincere about preventing another tragedy like Newtown’s, however, we need to have a serious conversation about how responsibly we can and should be exercising these freedoms. In the medical field doctors are told “first, do no harm.” This is an adage that those in the 24/7 news media need to consider adopting moving forward in order to prevent the damage that was done in Newtown last week from happening again.
Good points, but the problem is that the media is giving us what we want. I use "us" loosely, though, since I haven't watched TV in 14 years – and I'm not exaggerating. (I don't have a working TV.) I haven't seen one second of this latest fiasco. But there's the rub – if Americans are dissatisfied with the coverage, don't watch it! Why ANY conservative goes to watch Hollywood produced movies, subscribes to liberal newspapers/magazines, supports athletes and entertainers who degrade our society, or watches anything on MSM TV is beyond me. Imagine if scores of millions of people quit participating in pop culture. (I've done it – it's easy, and life is much more rewarding.) The impact would be profound. nBut alas, conservatives will no doubt continue complaining about cultural degradation while supporting the very aspects of that culture they claim to despise. n
Right, something should be done about the "misuse" of the 1st A to say/write things that are other than truthful, thoughtful, helpful, etc. And there are better uses of the 1st A than to post commentary as stupid as this one of Ms.. Mandel's. (Sorry, but the OP here is exceptionally stupid in every way.)
Exactly. After all, just as the second amendment, being written in the era of single shot muzzle loaders, cannot possibly apply to modern weapons, so too the founders could never have envisioned instant world wide mass communication, and must have intended only to ensure freedom of communication printed one page at a time and distributed only locally, on horseback or on foot.
If I were President, I would declare a national emergency and confiscate all military-grade killing-machine guns.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? What machine guns were used at Sandy Hook?
hey, amhoretz, learn how to read. the word machine is linked to killing as 1 phrase. i was NOT talking about machine guns. i was talking about heavy weaponry that r essentially killing machines. nman, u r well-named, amhoretz!
Those of you who blindly support gun control, that is, taking guns out of the hands of the sane and law-abiding, have the blood of 20 children and six adults on your hands, and you had better learn to think before you do more harm. In a society when every adult is likely to be armed and able to oppose you, it doesn't seem like a good idea to start shooting children. However in a "gun-free school zone", you probably think you can do whatever you like for your 15 minutes of fame.