Let's stipulate that there's more swearing, and more general violence, on television than there was in generations past.

My question would be: has the news industry ever not sensationalized, looked for juicy scandals, horrifying stories, etc.?

And, do we "get off" the real-life horror stories, or do we feel and instinctive desire, embedded genetically in the race, to find out as much as we can so we can protect ourselves? Even if the instinct is somewhat out of place in the modern world?

We're more loose with language, a little more graphic about what we'll show. But are we otherwise all that different? The truth of the matter is that we are, today, a much less violent country than we were 25 years ago. Not many people seem to know that, but it's true.

Well, Dean, my first comment here, and it's to correct you. I bleeve you meant "chic," as in fashion statement, instead of "shiek," as in camel doing Arab, but maybe I missed a play on words. Anyway, thanks for the invite.

I tried to keep it reasonably clean, but as you know, I'm grieving.

Bill Dooley
Reno, NV

Ha! I can't believe I was that dumb. Correction noted.

Although you know, if it were to happen that this were an Al Qaeda guy... ;-)

But it almost certainly isn't. Good catch.

>>"So here's the thing: we're being stalked by a sniper who is transfixed by what he sees on TV. He knows that the more he kills, the better the ratings get. And the better the ratings, the more famous he becomes. "

Maybe yes, maybe no. The Son of Sam did not kill for publicity (although he played with the papers). He killed because he was CRAZY. This is not the first serial sniper we've seen, not by a long shot. It doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough that it can't be considered even remotely new. It was happening long before serial killer movies became popular, and long before music with violent lyrics became popular.

What's different here? Three things. First of all, he's have a remarkably long string of successes. Secondly, the question of terrorism arises, and raises all sorts of ancillary questions. And third, punditry has become an industry. Not only online, in the form of blogs, but on TV. We have OJ Simpson to thank for that, I think. The whole OJ affair was a fertile breeding ground for punditry, and the public ate it up.

BUT, the point remains, this is not something new, it is not the start of a new trend, and it is not related to our cultural "failings".

But what if it's terrorism, you say?

Well, what if it is? The guy will be caught the same way regardless of his motives. The only thing worrisome about the terrorism aspect is that there might be a GROUP of snipers. That will make it harder to end this reign of terror, and we'll never be QUITE sure it's not going to happen again.

It will happen again. Maybe not with this particular sniper (or group of snipers or "terrorists" even), but it will happen again. Probably in the form of a copycat. The alarming thing about this situation is, as you said, this sniper has had a "remarkably long string of successes." And he's still out there lurking.

It's scary to think that this guy (or gal, even, let's not be discriminating) has gotten this far without getting caught. The authorities seem clueless, with only an olive-skinned male driving a white van with rusty ladders to go on. I think that just described half of Miami. This person WILL be caught, that I am sure of. What alarms me is the message this is getting to the public. Guns are so easily accessible in the United States and this guy is demonstrating just how easy it is to pick one up and kill a dozen people while the nation sits back in a stunned silence. This is motivation for hundreds of other Crazies sitting on their couches at home, drooling on themselves while watching all of this on television. Oh gee, what a great idea! Copycat's galore. It's an open invitation to the Crazy People of America to get off their asses and kill a few dozen people.

Not to mention the fame. Turn on the telvision or go to cnn.com and I am sickened by the scene of this media orgy.

America, the spoiled Super Power of the world, has been living in the illusion of safety for too long. We are not immune, and sadly, these events almost ensure that they will continue. September 11th made our vulnerabilities known to the world and to ourselves. We can fight tooth and nail to recover that illusion of safety to merely feel better in our skin, even though the threat still thrives...or we can open our eyes and deal with reality. It WILL happen again.

Gary: The notion that it might be a team of people would help explain why they're having so much trouble catching the perp. If there's more than one, driving different vehicles, then wildly conflicting eyewitness reports would be easily explained.

Of course, wildly conflicting eyewitness reports are normal. Still, it is rather remarkable that one guy would be able to carry something like this off in broad daylight over and over and no one would spot him clearly.

Trinity: Maryland has the strictest gun laws of any state in the nation. Even New York isn't as strict.

As a gun owner, I rather resent the notion that somehow, I'm about to go and become a "copycat." We've had serial killers before--usually they don't use guns, as it happens--and there have rarely been waves of copycats. If there's a copycat, usually it's one or two.

Still. This notion that there may be a team of snipers is attractive. It would fit the circumstances.

The fact that Maryland has the strictest gun laws of any state in the nation is quite irrelevant. Guns can be obtained easily, if not through the law, then definitely outside of it.

As for copycats, if you read correctly, I never said that the average joe-schmoe who owns a firearm is going to go become a copycat. I said that the "crazies sitting on their couches drooling on themselves" are the ones who would. Crazy people, crazy copycats.

More importantly, this is just another example of how easy it has become (and really always was) to terrorize the "invincible" American Super Power. My point is, the more this happens, the more it will continue to happen. And I think that was something Mr. bin Laden had pointed out over a year ago, that he wanted to let the world know that even the U.S. is not to invincible that we cannot be terrorized on our own soil. Crazy People of the World, Unite!

>>"More importantly, this is just another example of how easy it has become (and really always was) to terrorize the "invincible" American Super Power. "

We haven't become a nation of sissies, we just act like we have. Make enough people mad, though, and you've got something else.

The Japanese and the Germans learned that, to thier sorrow.

It's really not wise to keep PUSHING America, and if this turns out to be Islamicist terrorism, I suspect that the rebound is not going to work in thier favor.

I'd really rather NOT see America get SERIOUS about stamping out Islamicism, because I don't think we'll stop when the Wahabbis are gone.

This just in
(verbatim snippet from Drudge):

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SNIPER COVERAGE BOOSTS CABLE RATINGS
Tuesday, October 15, 2002

O'REILLY 2.6
HANNITY/COLMES 2.0
LARRY KING 1.7
SHEP SMITH 1.7
GRETA 1.6
AARON BROWN 1.5
BRIT HUME 1.3
CROSSFIRE .9
DONAHUE .6
HARDBALL .4
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Interesting numbers, Ara, although it would be somewhat more helpful to see what their ratings were the week before the murder spree began. I assume they were lower, but...

Anyway. Should this surprise us? When something horrific happens, we all rush to find out as much as we can. I don't think it will ever change. A normal reaction to fearful uncertainty is to try to find out as much as you can.

Or, put it another ay: did William Randolph Hearst make his money any differently from the way Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch have? (I suddenly heard someone say "Rosebud" with a thick Ozzie accent. [snicker])

Sticking your tongue out at a sleeping bear, poking it with a stick, prodding it in the butt with a needle, etc., probably seems pretty amusing at first.

I don't think we've become a nation of sissies, either. I'm just saying that we aren't as secure as we'd like to think we are. We are physically just as vulnerable to attack as most other countries...we just have a greater strength and arsenal to retaliate with. By terrorize, I mean, blow up our buildings, go on shooting rampages.

As for emotionally and spiritually, I think the American people have great strength of character. We are vulnerable to fear like the next normal person, but the one thing that I love about the U.S. is our ability to come together on the really important issues.

I am just afraid that the world is starting to get the hint that it is easier than previously thought to attack us, leading to more terrorist-like events.

It's actually quite amazing that something like this hadn't happened before. Granted, the belltower shooter on campus in Texas was a sniper... but this "serial sniper" thing is something that any emotionally disturbed indidvidual with a rifle could have done at any time...

Considering that, it seems to me that it's being handled well by both the media and the people having to live in the area. Law Enforcement is having such a difficult time with because there really aren't any precedents.

CABLE NEWS RATINGS:
[Friday, August 23, 2002]

O'Reilly 1.0;
Hannity and Colmes .7;
Larry King 1.1;
Shep Smith N/A
Greta .7;
Brown .5;
Hume N/A
Crossfire N/A
Donahue .1
Hardball w/Matthews .3

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

did William Randolph Hearst make his money any differently from the way Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch have?

Nope. They all do it cause it makes money. Or, as I stated, because it got ratings.

And it got ratings, because we watched.

Why did we watch?

You said:

A normal reaction to fearful uncertainty is to try to find out as much as you can.

I'm not convinced that nails it, Dean.

Honestly, I don't know anyone outside of the immediate area in Wash/Va/Md who feels their safety compromised by the sniper. Do you?

No, I think we watch because we're excited by it. Is that a new phenomenon? Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not.

It just is what it is. And what it is ain't news.

To me, news is something that is new and also merits attention because it impacts lots of people. If it affects lots of local people, it's local news. If it affects lots of people nationally, it's national news. Etc etc.

Some time ago a little toddler fell down a well and was trapped (happened in Midland TX, remember?) Was that news? No. But we watched, and the cable news channels (such as they were then) obliged by staging a 24/7 vigil at the accident scene until she was rescued.

Same with the miners in Pennsylvania. We anxiously awaited word of their rescue (or, alternately, their demise). When they were rescued, we rejoiced, and rightfully so.

But was it news?

I respectfully say no.

And so forth and so on.

Is it different now than in the days of Hearst?

I'm not sure. I was pretty young then.

%-)

But that doesn't let us off the hook, then or now, for watching.

And the fact remains that this sniper is getting his rocks off watching the coverage of his crime.

Of that, I'm convinced.

BTW, how do they come up with the statistics for the amount of people that watch a show on television? Do they take a poll? Do they have readings from our cable or satellite boxes about what channel we're tuned into?

Trinity,

Viewership statistics are gathered a number of different ways. But as far as I know, Nielsen Media Research is still the leader in this industry (and has been for decades). Check out their site. They'll explain it better than I could.

Allow me to riff on a theme brought up briefly here and suggest some questions for which I don't expect any answers...

The name of Hearst was bandied about above. Obviously the reference is to William Randolph Hearst and his impact on journalism a century ago, but I think it might be instructional to compare the contemporary situation with the case of another Hearst--Patty.

Twenty-five years ago a radical group called the SLA kidnapped the young heiress. Today, we'd call them "domestic terrorists," but they were pissants by comparison to today's lot (which is not to say they weren't a bunch of thugs, rapists and murderers). Looking back at the contemporary coverage, it begs the question: With 24 hr. news cycles, instant communication, the Amber alert system et al, could the Hearst kidnapping have dragged on as it did for almost two years? Especially with every eye and ear in the country tuned into to every trivial detail of the case, it seems likely that modern media saturation could have truncated the search considerably. Patty Hearst would have been too hot for the SLA to handle. She might not have been forced to participate in a botched bank robbery, she would have been freed much earlier saving her family considerable pain and anxiety and she would never have been put on trial for conspiracy alongside her kidnappers who would not have had the breathing room to brainwash her.

At the same time, it raises the specter that we could potentially become a nation of informers. I'm not suggesting we would descend into the kind of totalitarian state where no one could trust their neighbors and every gathering of two or more arouses the suspicion of the local commissar. Nor do I suggest that greater media scrutiny might violate the SLA's right to kidnap and rape Patty Hearst--but I'm wondering if we could become the kind of society where any deviation from a social norm, any "something that is new and also merits attention" arouses voyeuristic scrutiny because of its very uniqueness. The potential is a society where conforming in the sight of one's neighbors becomes a virtue; where the importance of seeming to do the right thing becomes a greater social moray than actually doing the right thing.

I'm just asking.

After digging through your extensive statement to find the question you were referring to, I conclude that you have indeed answered your own question.

My question is this: Have we not already become a nation of informers?

Random answers to a few points:

1) I would agree that at some point, constant coverage of an issue stops being news and starts becoming morbid. On the other hand, I stand by the notion that we watch because it's instinctive in us. Rationally, most of us are in no danger from the Beltway Sniper (he finally has a name, I notice). But the primitive parts of us don't know that, and never will. It's why such news coverage sells.

2) In the 24-hour news channels' defense: the constant coverage is partly a creature of the fact that they are designed for quick viewing--they know most people tune in for a few minutes and leave. So you get a weird impression if you just turn them on and leave them on during the day.

At night it's a different ballgame, granted.

3) To Trinity's question about tracking viewing habits: neither cable companies nor satellite providers currently have the ability to track what you're watching, unless you specifically order certain Pay-Per-View programs. I know; I work for a cable company and understand both the cable and the satellite technology pretty well.

Whether they'll have that or not in the future is another matter. Tivo hoped at one point to track 100% of its users' viewing habits to help subidize its service, but I don't know where they're at with that.

D) As for our becoming a nation of informers: I think that as a people we're more tolerant of diversity and quirky behavior than almost any society that has ever existed on this planet. I don't see that changing any time soon. I do worry about constant video surveillance, but I'm more concerned about the privacy implications than I am about it making us a more conformist society.

At a very deep level, Americans are almost kneejerk nonconformists. Even our conformists like to consider themselves nonconformist. %-) We have been this way from the beginning, even during the supposedly "conformist" 1940s and 50s--which, from what I can see, was as much a stereotype fed by television and movies as anything else. I mean, how could anyone say that about an era that produced Norman Mailer, Jack Kerouac, Studs Terkel, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Hugh Hefner, Buddy Holly, Miles Davis, and Elvis Presley? %-)

If anything, I think we're going to have the opposite problem: we're reaching an era where most of the news is "national" and people care less and less about the details of what's going on at the local level. We're telescoping out, not in, from everything that I can see.

Norman Mailer, Jack Kerouac, Studs Terkel, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Hugh Hefner, Buddy Holly, Miles Davis, and Elvis Presley?

You forgot Little Richard.

Trying VERY Hard to forget Little Richard...

Thanks for NOT allowing it, ARA!

What??

Forget Little Richard?

Girl, you need to get your priorities straight.

Hank Williams! Johnny Cash! Edward R. Murrow!

Dean Martn! Jerry Lewis! Milton Berle!

I told you so.....

"The guy will be caught the same way regardless of his motives."