Friday, December 04, 2015

Okay, I'll admit it, I just don't get it

So! Another day, another mass shooting.  Yaaaaawn.

It's not going to stop until guns (and ammunition) are more tightly regulated, but nobody wants to hear my opinion. 

What I'm wondering about is, back in 2009, we had our very own mass shooting, right here in my little town.  You can read about it here:

And for approximately half a day, there was pretty intense news coverage.  After a day or two, a brief mention every once in a while.  After that? Zip.

Cut to this week, when a gunman opened fire at an office party in San Bernadino.

Non-stop coverage.  There has been nothing BUT coverage of this incident on the news.  All San Bernadino, all the time.  All week long.

And I can't help but wonder, why?  Is it because the shooter this week is (presumably) Muslim, and "our" shooter was Vietnamese?  Is it because it happened in OMG California, where the rich people live, and not LOL Upstate New York, which is poverty-riddled?  Is it because the victims were middle-class, professional people, and not poor immigrants taking ESL classes?

I don't know.  But I wonder.


~~Silk said...

"Is it because the shooter this week is (presumably) Muslim, and "our" shooter was Vietnamese?" Yes. Exactly.

There are people who are intent on fomenting anger and distrust toward everything Islamic. The Binghamton shooter was obviously just a pissed-off whacko. The victims were, for the most part, not "just like us". The solution to problems like that is better social support, mental care, and so on. Nobody wants to do that because there's no profit in it.

But the San Bernadino shooters were Muslim, and therefore terrorists! Buzz word! Whip up the populous! (That's the new definition of terrorist, you know. It used to be someone who used violence to further a political or social agenda. By the old definition, people who blow up abortion centers are terrorists. Now, a terrorist is by definition Muslim, any Muslim who pisses you off.)

Certain segments of the population use fear and anger to get people to do what they want them to do to achieve their own goals. If they directly kill people in furtherance of those goals, we call them terrorists. If they just push people into demanding "boots on the ground", thereby killing people and making profit and power for their backers, we call them conservatives.

The beauty of fear and anger is that you don't have to keep reinforcing it. You just get it started and feed it occasionally, and it runs and grows itself.

profbridgett said...

Late to the commenting party on this, but I also think that your geographic location out of a major media market also plays a big part. It's easier to sustain a full-on media saturation when you've already got the resources in location and don't have to schlep the marquee reporters from NYC. SB is an easy 1 hour drive from LA (almost a suburb by SoCal definitions).

rockygrace said...

~~Silk, yep, I'm sure that "Muslim terrorist" makes *better* headlines than "random disenfranchised whackjob with a gun". sigh

and profbridgett, you make a good point. Being out in the boonies also contributed, I'm sure.