next »

[s0]

Roger Ebert on Columbine.

not loading for me. i just get a blank page

[kyn]

403 here as well

[feminazi]

that's what the page says

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."

In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

[gimymblert]

Everyones defend his own lawn, Movie goer will tell you it's not movie, gamer will tell you game is out of league, media says it's not their fault ... I mean really? isn't more about the general glorification of violence, both in media and real life (man up!)? Video games is as much as guilty than any media or anyone who don't stand against bullying.

[s_l_m]

Everyones defend his own lawn, Movie goer will tell you it's not movie, gamer will tell you game is out of league, media says it's not their fault ... I mean really? isn't more about the general glorification of violence, both in media and real life (man up!)? Video games is as much as guilty than any media or anyone who don't stand against bullying.

I don't know man, I am a vegetarian (where I come from, If you have a gun legally you are almost certainly a hunter) but I don't blame violence on gun availability even though I have absolutely nothing to gain from more guns being sold. Likewise, even though I am on a video games form, I think I am being objective when I say that I believe school shootings have little or nothing to do with games. I have even read some of the police report, and some of the kids own writings about Columbine (The definitive "Games caused it" killing). The reason Dylan himself gave for the massacre was it was revenge for an incident that he doesn't mention. After the shooting they asked people who knew them for information, and the story (with minor variations from person to person) was that a bunch of jocks surrounded him and threw ketchup covered tampons at him while calling him a fag and a teacher was near and did nothing. Yet nobody mentioned that on the media because it is easy to rally a bunch of parents against a video game or a movie, less so to rally them against bullying or social hierarchy.

[gimymblert]

We are saying the same things, except you try to keep video games out, and i include it in the GENERAL trend toward promoting violence. No reason to keep it out just because I happen to like it. That it has indirect consequence on small number of people doesn't mean it has no participation at all.

[s0]

Everyones defend his own lawn, Movie goer will tell you it's not movie, gamer will tell you game is out of league, media says it's not their fault ...

there are actually journalism codes in several countries to keep a low profile on individual cases of things like suicide, child abuse etc. to avoid copycats and protect the victims. in norway reporting on suicides is de facto banned.

That it has indirect consequence on small number of people doesn't mean it has no participation at all.

you just said that videogames are "as much" to blame. also are you basing this on anything?

[mono]

I think that everyone in a society should feel bad about themselves when something like this happens. I also feel sorry for everyone involved. I feel sorry for all the kids, their parents and even for the gunman in a different way. It's a tragedy.

[s_l_m]

We are saying the same things, except you try to keep video games out, and i include it in the GENERAL trend toward promoting violence. No reason to keep it out just because I happen to like it. That it has indirect consequence on small number of people doesn't mean it has no participation at all.

No, I just think that the simplest solution is usually the right one, so it is ridiculous that the first thing we ask when someone snaps is "what were they watching" and not "what was their life like". Nobody snaps and kills their classmate because of a "general trend" towards violence in the media...

I think that everyone in a society should feel bad about themselves when something like this happens. I also feel sorry for everyone involved. I feel sorry for all the kids, their parents and even for the gunman in a different way. It's a tragedy.

I agree, every time something like this happens it means that we as a society failed that person, and their victims

Note: this post has been edited a lot, because I suck at grammar

[Tumetsu]

I think that glorifying of violence in media can and does affect to behavior of people. However, I wouldn't blame them. Basically I think that bullying for example can be the ultimate cause, since it makes one to hate everyone around them. I suppose that if you are in this situation and are consumer of violent media, you might got ideas from them. Most likely they would stay at fantasy level, but for someone in correct mind-state might seem like a solution. Even then this someone might very well get those dangerous ideas themselves.

Point is that yes, media can be part of the problem, but most likely it is so small that it isn't worth to be solved. For completely arbitrary numbers, lets say that the reason for shooting is: 70% bullying, 23% poor relationship to parents, 5% personality traits and 2% influence of media. Removing that 2% from equation doesn't do much, while minimizing that 70% would go much further.

[s_l_m]

Point is that yes, media can be part of the problem, but most likely it is so small that it isn't worth to be solved. For completely arbitrary numbers, lets say that the reason for shooting is: 70% bullying, 23% poor relationship to parents, 5% personality traits and 2% influence of media. Removing that 2% from equation doesn't do much, while minimizing that 70% would go much further.

That is a weird way of putting it, But I agree with the gist of what you are saying. We should attack what are obviously the big problems instead of focusing on things that we think may have had a small psychological effect

[gimymblert]

Okay my english is starting to failing me here, but what I'm saying is not what they watch, but how the culture affect their life indirectly by promoting behavior that is not "the violence" but give birth to it. It's not just the killer, it's the social norm and pressure surrounded people and how the value (hidden or not) create overall bad climate.

[zalzane]

there are actually journalism codes in several countries to keep a low profile on individual cases of things like suicide, child abuse etc. to avoid copycats and protect the victims. in norway reporting on suicides is de facto banned.

Oh man, just imagine the scale of the shitstorm that would go down in the US if the congress tried to pass such a reasonable law.

[andy wolff]

I've never seen convincing evidence that media makes much difference to the behavior of disturbed people. If the only media we all consumed was happy and peaceful, we'd still have the occasional killing spree from some wacko or horribly abused kid.

[gimymblert]

However saying media consumption has no consequence on behavior is entirely false, the whole indie movement got strength because someone in japan made a generic 2D shooter game, people consume it and then change their life forever ...

[s0]

there are actually journalism codes in several countries to keep a low profile on individual cases of things like suicide, child abuse etc. to avoid copycats and protect the victims. in norway reporting on suicides is de facto banned.

Oh man, just imagine the scale of the shitstorm that would go down in the US if the congress tried to pass such a reasonable law.

they're not actually laws, just voluntary ethical codes.

[SirNiko]

Most of the good stuff that goes on in Scandinavia is because people do it voluntarily instead of being forced by law. We did case studies in MBA school where major corporations in Sweden had trouble motivating Scandinavian managers to take on more responsibility because they felt guilty if their salaries got too high.

Perhaps a good balance would be, rather than talking about the killer, to use the event as an opportunity to submit some generalized but relevant news about signs of frustration, depression, etc. that parents could use to try to understand and prevent similar situations without directly glorifying killers.

[s_l_m]

there are actually journalism codes in several countries to keep a low profile on individual cases of things like suicide, child abuse etc. to avoid copycats and protect the victims. in norway reporting on suicides is de facto banned.

Oh man, just imagine the scale of the shitstorm that would go down in the US if the congress tried to pass such a reasonable law.

they're not actually laws, just voluntary ethical codes.

Yeah, nothing that reasonable could ever happen in the States...

However saying media consumption has no consequence on behavior is entirely false, the whole indie movement got strength because someone in japan made a generic 2D shooter game, people consume it and then change their life forever ...

Of course media has an effect on us, video games have made me laugh and video games have made me cry. But killing somebody needs a whole other level of emotion, all we are saying is that anybody who thinks that this emotion comes from video games is looking in the wrong place

Again, so I don't need to double post:
I just bought one of these, and am loving it It works great for emulation.
http://www.amazon.ca/Nintendo-Retrolink-Super-Classic-Controller/dp/B002824SNS

[Brother Android]

I've never seen convincing evidence that media makes much difference to the behavior of disturbed people. If the only media we all consumed was happy and peaceful, we'd still have the occasional killing spree from some wacko or horribly abused kid.

While this is probably true, it doesn't follow that media can't have a pretty huge effect (positive or negative) on people in general, and I don't think it's that ridiculous to claim that if our media romanticizes (directly or indirectly) certain forms of violent behavior, it can give people ideas they wouldn't otherwise have had. People pick up, for example, ideas about gender norms and romance from films. Violent media is different because most people are well-trained to second-guess violent impulses, since it's difficult to get away with acting on them. But I know that there are studies that have shown that people experience heightened aggressive tendencies after playing violent video games and stuff like that, and if a person is highly inclined to act on their aggression, then things that heighten their aggression may make them more dangerous.

I know you're not saying that media makes no difference to people's behavior in general, but I think that depending on what we decide the difference is between a "disturbed" person and a "normal" person, it may in fact be quite accurate to claim that media at least exacerbates problems of violence and such. I agree that it isn't their primary source - people treating other people horribly is my best guess as to its primary source - but I believe that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that media can significantly affect people's opinions and perceptions of reality. I've seen it in studies and I see it in people I've known.

[mono]

The thing that really interests me is why these school shootings always happen in smaller towns that don't have high crime rates. If it were to be outer influences like games and media that cause these things to happen then it could happen anywhere. As I see it more than often it doesn't when it comes to school shootings. The setting is always so expected.