I don't editorialize much, per se, as I generally provide articles with the details, give a short opinion, then turn it over to you. Every once in awhile I will, as I did with Paul Walker, and it's something I'm going to try and do a few times a week with a relevant eye pointed towards current events. In this case, there are three seperate events from the past few days that have bothered me greatly, so I want to talk about them, and hopefully you will with me.
I lived in the city of Beaver, Pennsylvania for several years, which is about an hour or so from where I live now. So it was with horror as I watched the news this afternoon at my office and saw extensive coverage being given to the case of an 18 year old boy who raped and physically assaulted an 85 year old nun, from a church I'm fairly familar with as well. I don't need to get into the story, as I think we can all agree that what this young man did was heinous, and he deserves to rot in jail. No, my problem was with what was reported after. I've testified inside the Beaver County Courthouse on both Child Welfare/Custody cases and on court-appointed felons as well. The Courthouse is huge, the courtrooms themselves are huge, and I got lost in there many times. Why is this relevant? Because the young man's first appearance(outside of arraignment) was scheduled to be in front of a judge today, but it was postponed so it could be moved to a larger venue. Why? To accomodate the large throngs of expected people with special interest in this case, both reporters and observers alike. The boy raped a nun, for goodness sakes, and while I'm all for freedom of the press, speech, and right to assemble, I don't understand for the life of me why people would want to hear the grisly details of how an 18 year old raped a nun. As for the extra reporters, many of those expected that necessitated a change of venue to a larger facility were from out of state. Of what relevance is it to out-of-state news sites? It's bad enough that the nun will have to relive the memory every day for the rest of her life, but to be forced to travel out of town just to accomodate reporters and those with "interest" in the case? Granted, it's not every day an 18 year old rapes an 85 year old, especially a nun, but when it comes time for the accused getting to face his accuser, must it be done in such a large venue? I'd think if ever a time a case came up for a closed courtroom, this would be it. Instead, this nun who's dedicated her life to doing good will have her story reported on from here to North Carolina to Maine, and for what end? To present a story on page 9 of out-of-town news?
The second is the case of Paul Walker, which I wrote about in great length yesterday. While his death was a big deal, obviously, I had heard nothing of the benefit he was attending prior to, nor had I heard of the charity it was for, which happened to be his own. While celebrities and fans mourned in what all accounts was a good and humble man, news outlets and social bloggers dug in like hyenas and chastised Walker for his relationship with his girlfriend 17 years his younger, one he alledgedly began a relationship with when she was underage. Walker can't exactly defend himself now, can he, so the only people affected by this are innocent parties, such as his daughter, family, and his girlfriend. Further, why was this something that by all accounts only came out now, after his death? It sickens me that reporters and bloggers alike may have used Walker's death to capitilize on this story.
The third is the Phil Robertson comments, he of Duck Dynasty fame. His comments on his reigious beliefs, specifically on homosexuality, had people up in arms by the tens of thousands. Robertson's views, misguided perhaps, were said with no malice intended. The more I think about it, he was simply commenting on his faith, and what his scripture dictates. He noted several times that he held no animosity towards people who differ from him, noting in fact that he loves them. Be it due to the outcry of people angered by him, however, he was suspended from his show by A&E. Was he somewhat discriminatory? I guess so, if you look long and hard enough. But what's less reported, and gets far less air-time, is Robertson's philanthropic efforts, and him using his celebrity status(and his own money) to travel in his spare time to share the gospel of his religion. But when he comments on his beliefs of a controversial part of his religion, the press is all over it.
So why do we as a people love negative press, yet largely ignore the positive? Sure, we have our feel good stories, ones about hometown kids done good, or heroes who've saved lives. But by and large, they're not controversial. They don't unfortunately, stir up the feelings inside us that the raping of an 85 year old nun does. It's a crazy world we live in, so by and large, the news as we know it gets crazier every day, and it's what sells. It's what gets hits on a blog.
Second, there's a weird sense of comfort, I believe, in feeling good about ourselves in comparison to other people. Yes, I might have done this or that, but I've never raped a nun.Not in this particular case, but I am guilty of this line of thinking. It's not justifying our actions, for most, but it's a way of alleviating guilt and minimizing them. If we can look at someone who raped a nun, we don't look so bad in comparison! And it's this mindset that leads to more negative press, as some will always justify their actions as being "not as bad" as others.
Third and finally, I believe our culture has a weird obsession with seeing celebrities fail. I myself have hoped Chris Brown slips up, so he gets sent to jail. We look at the Amy Winehouse's of the world, and even after he death, we're quick to judge her. Be it the pastor caught with a prostitute or Paul Walker's alledged statutory rape 7 years ago, it's almost as if there's a sense of satisfaction in seeing celebrities fall. Again, I'm guilty. When I see a headline for a wrestler violating a wellness policy, I've been eager to find out who. There are people, as our message boards attest, who would be downright gleeful if John Cena ever failed a Wellness Test. Why? Are we so interested in seeing reputations tarnished that we look for anything, anywhere, that may be dirt on a person? Based on personal experience and what I see in the media, I believe it to be so.
I'm just as guilty, as 99% of what I write about in here is of the negative persuasion. And it's time I change that. While I may not find a story that's positive, per se, I plan on looking for the good that's come out of it, or has the potential to.
Until you stop replying, of course. Then it's back to the negative stuff.
Thoughts on this? Do you agree or disagree with me?
I look forward to your responses, and please, don't hesitate to challenge my viewpoints. I can handle it, and always like a good debate.
I lived in the city of Beaver, Pennsylvania for several years, which is about an hour or so from where I live now. So it was with horror as I watched the news this afternoon at my office and saw extensive coverage being given to the case of an 18 year old boy who raped and physically assaulted an 85 year old nun, from a church I'm fairly familar with as well. I don't need to get into the story, as I think we can all agree that what this young man did was heinous, and he deserves to rot in jail. No, my problem was with what was reported after. I've testified inside the Beaver County Courthouse on both Child Welfare/Custody cases and on court-appointed felons as well. The Courthouse is huge, the courtrooms themselves are huge, and I got lost in there many times. Why is this relevant? Because the young man's first appearance(outside of arraignment) was scheduled to be in front of a judge today, but it was postponed so it could be moved to a larger venue. Why? To accomodate the large throngs of expected people with special interest in this case, both reporters and observers alike. The boy raped a nun, for goodness sakes, and while I'm all for freedom of the press, speech, and right to assemble, I don't understand for the life of me why people would want to hear the grisly details of how an 18 year old raped a nun. As for the extra reporters, many of those expected that necessitated a change of venue to a larger facility were from out of state. Of what relevance is it to out-of-state news sites? It's bad enough that the nun will have to relive the memory every day for the rest of her life, but to be forced to travel out of town just to accomodate reporters and those with "interest" in the case? Granted, it's not every day an 18 year old rapes an 85 year old, especially a nun, but when it comes time for the accused getting to face his accuser, must it be done in such a large venue? I'd think if ever a time a case came up for a closed courtroom, this would be it. Instead, this nun who's dedicated her life to doing good will have her story reported on from here to North Carolina to Maine, and for what end? To present a story on page 9 of out-of-town news?
The second is the case of Paul Walker, which I wrote about in great length yesterday. While his death was a big deal, obviously, I had heard nothing of the benefit he was attending prior to, nor had I heard of the charity it was for, which happened to be his own. While celebrities and fans mourned in what all accounts was a good and humble man, news outlets and social bloggers dug in like hyenas and chastised Walker for his relationship with his girlfriend 17 years his younger, one he alledgedly began a relationship with when she was underage. Walker can't exactly defend himself now, can he, so the only people affected by this are innocent parties, such as his daughter, family, and his girlfriend. Further, why was this something that by all accounts only came out now, after his death? It sickens me that reporters and bloggers alike may have used Walker's death to capitilize on this story.
The third is the Phil Robertson comments, he of Duck Dynasty fame. His comments on his reigious beliefs, specifically on homosexuality, had people up in arms by the tens of thousands. Robertson's views, misguided perhaps, were said with no malice intended. The more I think about it, he was simply commenting on his faith, and what his scripture dictates. He noted several times that he held no animosity towards people who differ from him, noting in fact that he loves them. Be it due to the outcry of people angered by him, however, he was suspended from his show by A&E. Was he somewhat discriminatory? I guess so, if you look long and hard enough. But what's less reported, and gets far less air-time, is Robertson's philanthropic efforts, and him using his celebrity status(and his own money) to travel in his spare time to share the gospel of his religion. But when he comments on his beliefs of a controversial part of his religion, the press is all over it.
So why do we as a people love negative press, yet largely ignore the positive? Sure, we have our feel good stories, ones about hometown kids done good, or heroes who've saved lives. But by and large, they're not controversial. They don't unfortunately, stir up the feelings inside us that the raping of an 85 year old nun does. It's a crazy world we live in, so by and large, the news as we know it gets crazier every day, and it's what sells. It's what gets hits on a blog.
Second, there's a weird sense of comfort, I believe, in feeling good about ourselves in comparison to other people. Yes, I might have done this or that, but I've never raped a nun.Not in this particular case, but I am guilty of this line of thinking. It's not justifying our actions, for most, but it's a way of alleviating guilt and minimizing them. If we can look at someone who raped a nun, we don't look so bad in comparison! And it's this mindset that leads to more negative press, as some will always justify their actions as being "not as bad" as others.
Third and finally, I believe our culture has a weird obsession with seeing celebrities fail. I myself have hoped Chris Brown slips up, so he gets sent to jail. We look at the Amy Winehouse's of the world, and even after he death, we're quick to judge her. Be it the pastor caught with a prostitute or Paul Walker's alledged statutory rape 7 years ago, it's almost as if there's a sense of satisfaction in seeing celebrities fall. Again, I'm guilty. When I see a headline for a wrestler violating a wellness policy, I've been eager to find out who. There are people, as our message boards attest, who would be downright gleeful if John Cena ever failed a Wellness Test. Why? Are we so interested in seeing reputations tarnished that we look for anything, anywhere, that may be dirt on a person? Based on personal experience and what I see in the media, I believe it to be so.
I'm just as guilty, as 99% of what I write about in here is of the negative persuasion. And it's time I change that. While I may not find a story that's positive, per se, I plan on looking for the good that's come out of it, or has the potential to.
Until you stop replying, of course. Then it's back to the negative stuff.
Thoughts on this? Do you agree or disagree with me?
I look forward to your responses, and please, don't hesitate to challenge my viewpoints. I can handle it, and always like a good debate.
