Because You Never Asked

 

(4/07)

     I write this essay just a few days after the “events” at Virginia Tech University. These events exploded on the American scene with such nuclear impact, it is not necessary to explain or describe them. If you are not aware of them by now, you are not worth talking to. In spite of one’s attempts to emotionally escape the mess we humans are leaving on the planet, some earthly consciousness is still a prerequisite for what we loosely define as intelligence. If you don’t know what happened at Virginia Tech, you can immediately return to your intravenous life style --- and I’m sorry for bothering you.

     Anything that happened at Virginia Tech just 4 days ago could now be considered ancient history. That is when we thought of Virginia Tech (if we thought of Virginia Tech at all) in terms like “hokies”, Michael Vick, maroon and orange, and the tens of thousands who showed up every football weekend in Blacksburg, Va. Ah yes, those carefree days of collegiate hi-jinx and hormonal excess. What, me worry?

     Virginia Tech now has a brand new identity, one that will be the signature skyline of its existence forever. If we were asked to take a word association test and the word was “Columbine”, the words “Virginia Tech” might very well be the most prevalent response --- and vice versa. This is a leash both places will never be able to run completely free from.

     It is now the year 1AD (after disaster) at Virginia Tech University.

     If the reader is not one of the approximately 6 billion people who are unfamiliar with this work, you might remember the Columbine essay (see essay, “Columbine“), an essay which focused very little on the killings themselves and almost completely on a media incident the writer found relevant when nobody else did.

     This current essay dealing with America’s latest act of lunatic mayhem, will have a similar personality. My opinions on the event itself --- the whys and wherefores of it --- could only be conjectural, just like anyone else’s. One could point to the exalted position we give violence in our culture. One could point to the commercial exploitation of violent behavior rampant in our visual “arts”. I could remind the reader, after almost 700 pages of dubious philosophical patter in these essays, that one of the central themes of the work is that we live in a culturally sick environment. It is too competitive, too material, too self-centered and ego oriented, too fixated on Rudyard Kipling’s imposters, “success” and “failure”. We divide ourselves into “winners” and “losers” in an almost compulsive manner. We now seem to value conquering each other more than loving each other. Our culture is a greenhouse incubator for frustration.

     That’s enough of that. I don’t claim to have made a direct link as to cause and effect here, as to why this troubled young man did what he did. I’m sure you’ve thought about it too. We should all be thinking about it. I’d be glad to listen to your thoughts on the subject.

     My focus now turns to media coverage of the event. There are 2 elements here that have aroused my attention. The first one is the widespread dissemination of the movie made by the perpetrator and the propriety of doing such. This is currently being debated by the media itself. I will not discuss anything new here, but will further develop themes that need to be. The second element has to do with some faulty information put forth by our media sources, none of which is being discussed by anyone --- except me.

     OK --- by now we’ve all seen the ghoulish performance by the sad individual responsible for this horrifying incident. How long it will run on Broadway is still to be seen, but its legs, unlike Monica or O.J., are functioning in an era of colossal governmental incompetence where the daily strife of scandal and wartime death and destruction may tire them quickly. However, as I write, less than a week after the fateful day, the psychopath’s home movie has been given intense and massive coverage. Without a doubt, from a commercial standpoint, it is great television. But this is not The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. This is real dead people, real suffering people, all too real trauma. An incident like this leads any sensitive person to ask why it happened and how it can be prevented. How does the widespread dissemination of this film relate to these questions?

     Big Media defends its complete diffusion of the material by saying this was an excellent opportunity to get into the mind of a homicidal maniac. For those of us who feel there are other factors for non-dissemination that outweigh this, the reply is, “yes, this is true, but couldn’t this material be made public without using the film itself to do so?” It could be described, quoted, discussed, etc.

     Is it possible to forget that there are 32 dead people who’ve been senselessly mowed down in the prime of their lives? They have parents, siblings, close friends and romantic interests. How cruel must it be for them to see this performance?

     And then there are the parents, siblings and close relatives of the offender. There seems to be nothing to indicate they are not decent people, fulfilling their immigrant yearnings for the “American Dream”. It is surely a waste of ink to tell anyone how difficult a moment this must be for them. But there are practical concerns as well. The one person we could surely vent our hate and scorn upon is dead. Who is next in line?

     Obviously, none of the people just mentioned --- those most directly effected by all this --- have to watch the murderer’s film, and I doubt if any of them are devoting any or even a little time to it. But they know it is out there and that millions are seeing it. It must be very difficult.

     But my main gripe with media coverage of the home movie is more concrete than the “bleeding heart” concern for those closest to the tragedy.

     Anyone who likes baseball enough to watch it on TV is familiar with the idiot who jumps out of the stands and seeks his moment of fame running across the hallowed field of Major League dreams. It has long been the policy of the broadcast moguls to never put the camera on the errant fool, thus not encouraging others who would seek the same moment of fame. Isn’t there a similar reason for not showing the home movie of the man responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre, especially since the stakes are much higher?

     History has taught us this is no longer an isolated incident we can shrug our shoulders at. Does anyone believe there are not other demented lunatics out there with similar frustrations? It is obvious this pitiful young man put much time and energy into his cathartic moment. He planned and schemed it up with painstaking care. His film seemed to be the immortal monument for the whole deadly burlesque. This massive diffusion of his most passionate undertaking is surely the culmination of his most fervent desires. If Big Media had revealed the film’s existence but not shown it, they’d be telling others with similar desires that it will never happen. But the media moguls could not resist such fantastic television titillation. They’ve said to the next lunatic, “sure, c’mon, make your World’s Funniest Home Movie, we’ll show it.”

     Irresponsible.

     But this is a debatable subject. My second bitch with media behavior is far more tangible, touchable, far more easy to point fingers at and say, “hey man, what are you doing?” And this is why it is frustrating to see nobody discussing it. Could it be that Big Media does not want to discuss it? After all, who else decides what we discuss and don’t discuss?

     Undoubtedly, like all the major athletic facilities now masquerading as seats of higher learning, Virginia Tech must have an impressive building known as The School of Journalism. Given the almost complete lack of journalistic standards soon to be enunciated in this essay, one has to wonder if any school of journalism anywhere has not just become a stage prop for a purely commercial industry much more devoted to the “k’ching” than to the truth.

     By noon on the day of the massacre, the news had fully broken and was, understandably, monopolizing our media outlets. I get home from work about 3:00 PM and took in a healthy dose of it all, on and off, until retiring that night. For about 7 hours worth of “Breaking News”, I was repetitively told --- not allegedly, not as a rumor, not through some anonymous, unconfirmed source --- that the killer was a Chinese national, not a student at the university, who had come to America in September through the port of San Francisco.

     Pretty specific stuff.

     It wasn’t until the day after the tragedy that I learned (we learned) he was South Korean, a student at Virginia Tech, who had lived in America since he was 8 years old.

     OK, I know, China and Korea are not that far apart, picky-picky. But I’d expect the “facts” going out to tens of millions from the “most trusted names in news”, to be somewhat more in harmony with reality. Whatever happened to who, what, where and when, all confirmed and proven, before we start telling people something?

     Perhaps it is time to take that School of Journalism on your campus and turn it into a weight room-training facility for the football and basketball teams. After all, that’s where the money and prestige of an American university comes from anyway.