This sharpshooter whacko in the Metro DC area hears speculation in the media that he's not such a great shot because the victims are receiving body shots... then all of a sudden the shooter starts making head shots. Then people are warned not to go out alone but rather to travel in, at least, pairs. So the animal takes out one of a couple. Shouldn't we get the clue that he is craving the attention and therefore shouldn't the media turn off the focus responsibly? Also, was the info about the white cube van and the "reports" about two "olive-skinned" men just plain mis-information.. to embolden the guy into making a mistake? Hope he's reading this!
The 20-20 special seemed to me to focus on the victims, was this a ploy to make the shooter fill remorse or does this person have no concept of that?
How can you blame the media? What are they supposed to do, not report it and act like people aren't dying? And how do you think America's Most Wanted catches their criminals? They send out reports of the suspects tendencies, what they wear, look like, and are driving, and eyewitnesses see this, report it to the police, and they're arrested. So if the media stops covering it how are we supposed to know where the guy is!? And the media gets blamed for telling people to travel together and be safe? This guy a psychopath, and with or without the media he would kill people. Nobody is the blame but the murderer and whoever is helping him.
I don't blame the media, but I don't agree with opinions or innuendos about what people should do....There is nothing people can do to necessarily lessen their chances lest bunkering in their homes.
Please notice the quotation marks around the word blame in the title. Isn't there a difference between reporting the news and obsessing over it? America's Most Wanted is, what, one hour a week? I bet the newschannels are devoting 32 out of 48 hours of their coverage following each murder. Is that really necessary? Is it contributory?That's all I'm asking. No one has address the point by point (two of 'em) reaction of the shooter to the "news" about him-- meaning the skepticism of his marksmanship ability and the false security of being advised to travel in pairs. Are those not clear responses to the coverage? It wouldn't surprise me to see him target someone inside next.
What struck me is that the day the President comes out and offers his first comments on the case, we have a shooting after a relatively quiet spell. I don't know that there is a connection, but looking at what this nut has done, it wouldn't surprise me if he siezed upon the Prez's comments as motivation to go out and do it again.
You know, this guy has never taken a shot at Rockets fans posting on clutchcity.net while at work from 11:30 am to 12:30 pm.... uh oh...DUCK!!!
I think they could easily be to blame for misdirecting people with the entire van angle. At one of the first few shootings, someone thinks they might have seen a white van leaving. A white work van -- of which there are thousands in the state. Now everyone's looking for white vans, at the expense of considering other posibilities. There's a shooting -- look for a white van -- and there's bound to be one around. What would be a smart thing for a sniper to do? Do your shootings when a white van is in the area, then drive away in your rented sedan. Or don't even worry about it, since there's bound to be one in the vicinity anyway. Every witness in the area will be looking for that van, and ignoring anything else. Brings to mind the story of the bank robber who, before cameras were so good/common, wore a large red band-aid on his nose. As he exited the bank, he took it off. The only description anyone could give was that band-aid, because that's what stood out. No height, weight, hair or eye color, etc. No one could remember seeing him before or after. People were so focused on that one item, that they ignored everything else.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a fundamental shift in news coverage brought about by television news (particularly CNN & Fox) and the internet. The primary shift has been away from traditional reporting and fact finding and towards "coverage" and opinion. Today, the media has to "cover" every major event. They can't just report on what happened. They have to be there in the middle of it as a part of it. It's why they stick reporters in the middle of hurricanes and have morons with mics shoving them in the faces of grieving widows or accused corporate criminals. We can all thank CNN and its coverage of the Gulf War for this, primarily. In addition to that, there has been a greater and greater shift towards opinion reporting where the reporter or the person talking IS part of the story or when the anchor offers his/her take on the issue. Fox was the first to really do this where they blend sort of a casual conversation about daily events with actual news coverage. What is terribly troubling about both changes is that they have largely replaced the fundamental positives of journalism - good solid investigative reporting, fact revealing, careful documentation, healthy restraint - with sensationalistic fluff. Instead of getting good, solid stories, we get sound bites and anecdotes. Rather than the facts, we get postulations and opinions. There is a race to get news out faster and faster. If you can't get it out fast, you have to deliver it in a way that makes it fun or controversial. The problem is that, in delivering news either way, you cannot possibly hope to be accurate. Even if what is said is accurate, there is no way to report the WHOLE story. So, we get a skewed view of every story. Ultimately, the real blame lies in ourselves. We demand faster news coverage and hipper, wittier, more biting commentary. Because we demand these things, advertisers demand them of news outlets and the news outlets are forced to comply or go out of business. The greater the demand, the more ridiculous and, ultimately, innacurate the news becomes. There are so few news sources left that are worth reading/watching, it's really sad. I try to patronize the few that are worth it but they are slowly fading. It's getting to the point where there is very little actually reported that is worthy of watching and reading.
Funny.... ...I could have sworn I read a thread a week ago where people mentioned it wasn't getting enough coverage? The media always gets the "blame". Whether it's appropriate or not.
And even if there isn't one around, I would venture to guess that the memories of some witnesses will create one.
For what its worth, the cops have been usnig the media to get information out. They (the cops) have stated on occasion that they want to disseminate as much information as possible to viewers so that people can help be the eyes and ears for the cops.
