Virginia Tech and media
Note: I started writing this when the shooter's material was plastered all over the media and stopped for a bunch of reasons. Here it is... finally.
There's a lot to say on the "story" of Virginia Tech, and a lot has already been said. But the coverage has reached a new level of intensity. I've never seen a blog for one news event before. In truth, I haven't looked, so please let me know if this has been the case for a while.
Here's what I'm interested in... Cho's media-savviness and how it plays into our own need for information. Here are some of my questions:
1. Why did he send a written document? Aren't the video and photos enough? Does he know something we don't about technology? Perhaps he thought his written document would survive the technological age. Perhaps writing is still more cathartic than videotaping yourself.
2. Did he think he would achieve some sort of immortality by personalizing this act through a video testimonial? I wonder if this was his way of creating a more human connection to the world. They say we live as long as we are remembered, right? It's ironic, though. He must have known that the way we churn through news he would be merely a blip, testimonials or not.
3. Why do I, and so many other people, care about this? Aren't there bigger problems in the world? Of course. But this is so much more palatable, isn't it? One guy. A despicable act, certainly, but it must be easier to dissect than Iraq, Darfur, Iran, and all the other scary problems going on in the world.
I've had a very long and intense love/hate relationship with "Media". I can hardly imagine my life without it. Internet, television, radio, books, movies, you name it, I'm pretty much addicted to it and obsessed with its power at the same time. It's all very meta.
But "News Media" has always been a different animal for me. I have railed against it for years. The way it panders to people's fears. The way it chews up important ideas into palatable soundbites. Thankfully, we now have the Internet, so we're not tied down to the Networks. But Network News is still considered the most credible source for information by a lot of people. I know it will change. It already is changing.
We have a new problem, though, which was so clearly evident in the media coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting. Information overload. Where do we go for what, and who do we trust and why? Do we just give up and tune out? Let it all blur into one big ball of subconscious angst and get all snarky at the guy behind the deli counter for screwing up the change? Maybe we just discuss it for a little while at the water cooler or over dinner with a friend. I think we're more likely to simply shake our heads in disappointment and frustration at any one of the many "angles" this "story" has. And we'll finish our meal, pay our check, and a few minutes later get annoyed when it starts to rain and we forgot our umbrella at home.
I'm sure our own sanity depends on tuning out the Big Fears and the Big Questions to focus on the more mundane, less important problems of our daily lives. Thank goodness for biological imperatives like that, because without them, I'm pretty sure we'd all succumb to crazy. But there has to be a balance between tuning out and getting oversaturated with information. Finding it is a tricky beast, and I don't think I've come close to finding the answer. But I'll keep trying.