2008 Woodie Awards
Editor's Column - Moral Outrage is In
Vanessa Persico
Issue date: 10/4/07 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Last week, this newspaper ran an article about the recent shootings at Delaware State University (DSU). Like many other newspapers in our situation, we thought it would be the best way to respond to the surprise, sympathy, and, frankly, fear that such an event provoked. How thick-headed would it be to look the other way when students just like us are shooting each other just a few states over?
But then it happened again. I wouldn't have heard about it except that my Political Science professor brought it up at the beginning of class on Monday: a University of Memphis football player was fatally shot on Sunday night. The news reports are rife with the passive voice, not mentioning yet who may or may not have shot him, and USA Today seems to be trying to cast this tragedy in a positive light, or at least set it apart from Virginia Tech and DSU, by highlighting the fact that the shooting was "personal," saying that it "was not a random act of violence."
Well, to be frank, that's ridiculous. I don't care whether it's the random psychotic break of a mentally disturbed student at war with society, the irrational escalation of quasi-gang conflicts, or a personal conflict gone bad: all of a sudden, it's as if college students think that a gun is at least within the realm of possibility when trying to deal with people they have problems with. And it's not.
Let me repeat that. Shooting people who piss you off is NOT an option.
The media -- this newspaper included -- is partially to blame for spreading the wrong perception. Neutrality is (supposed to be) king for journalists -- and anyway, for this and other college papers, editorial policy insists that we focus on the significance that events have for our campus. As a result, the reporter must take a very blasé stance toward the events being reported on, taking them as a given, a thing that has already happened, and certainly nothing to be noted for its idiocy or moral bankruptcy.
But then it happened again. I wouldn't have heard about it except that my Political Science professor brought it up at the beginning of class on Monday: a University of Memphis football player was fatally shot on Sunday night. The news reports are rife with the passive voice, not mentioning yet who may or may not have shot him, and USA Today seems to be trying to cast this tragedy in a positive light, or at least set it apart from Virginia Tech and DSU, by highlighting the fact that the shooting was "personal," saying that it "was not a random act of violence."
Well, to be frank, that's ridiculous. I don't care whether it's the random psychotic break of a mentally disturbed student at war with society, the irrational escalation of quasi-gang conflicts, or a personal conflict gone bad: all of a sudden, it's as if college students think that a gun is at least within the realm of possibility when trying to deal with people they have problems with. And it's not.
Let me repeat that. Shooting people who piss you off is NOT an option.
The media -- this newspaper included -- is partially to blame for spreading the wrong perception. Neutrality is (supposed to be) king for journalists -- and anyway, for this and other college papers, editorial policy insists that we focus on the significance that events have for our campus. As a result, the reporter must take a very blasé stance toward the events being reported on, taking them as a given, a thing that has already happened, and certainly nothing to be noted for its idiocy or moral bankruptcy.
Be the first to comment on this story