George Zimmerman and James Holmes would seem to have very little in common.
Zimmerman describes himself as a man versus "the gun" (in a Sean Hannity/Fox TV interview).
Holmes has yet to describe his view of self in light of recent gruesome events, but wait not too long.
It may be coming.
Which brings me to questions redundant, never fully answered.
How does media, whether manipulated (or prodded) by victim's interests as well as particular so-called perpetrator "rights" serve the (best) public interest in such cases?
To inform factually is a given, however, does media, by exposing every angle and facet of a crime while the investigation and prosecution is in progress, truly serve the public?
How much information is too much?
In particular, when does a (self-confessed) perpetrator of violent crime, involving death and/or debilitation, deserve to be heard?
The Zimmerman justification is (uniquely) more or less: "He's been convicted in the press already by a liberal-inspired agenda that used the parents of the victim to elicit an emotional rush to judgement, so let George speak."
He has.
A sampling:
""I feel that it was all God's plan, and for me to second guess it or judge it," (shook his head).
The Holmes justification might be: "He murdered 12 people (58 injured) in a premeditated rampage, but he's very bright, so let's hear what he has to say."
In other words, the upcoming (recurring) refrain might be, "the mentally ill are our problem - as collective humanity; shame on us . . . and let's hear from this pitiful [expletives deleted].
So far (thankfully) the victim's voices have been the loudest and clearest.
Bottomline:
How well do media (or any of us) actually listen (well) to the voices of the dead - as well as those now separated from their loved ones?
Shouldn't we, can't we do better?
But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." ~Edmund Burke
No comments:
Post a Comment