The Predictable Banality of the After-Massacre Media

From Rick Moran, at PJ Media:

I would like to propose that anyone and everyone who writes anything about the massacre in Colorado save their work and, when the next mass killing occurs, simply republish the article, plugging in the new names, dates, and places where appropriate.

This will not only save time and effort, but, since we’ve already read what pundits have to say and we know all the arguments by heart, we won’t have to read it again. Thus, the news-consuming public will be spared the angst-ridden diatribes against guns, or immorality, or our broken mental health system, or violence in the media, or how it’s the left’s fault or the right’s fault — even articles like this one that complain about pundits writing about the same subjects every time a mass shooting occurs.

The post-massacre media environment gives true meaning to the cliche “deja vu” — “already seen” according to Wikipedia. I challenge anyone to come up with anything original written by anyone in the last 24 hours that didn’t follow the now traditional meme-making and narrative-setting path that every major public bloodletting has followed in the last decade.

Well, personally I like the media reporting on the specifics of a case --- what caused the shooter to act the way he did. No two gunman are the same, although theories of psychology can provide answers. And reporting on the reporting is certainly appropriate. Any big news event is a national media event. We can't divorce ourselves from it, or from criticism of the coverage. I do think folks can just hold off on the policy ramifications a bit longer, and the sick justifications for the politicization. That is indeed too much.

Rick also has this, "Why Is Brian Ross Still Working for ABC News?" The short answer is he made a mistake, corrected it and apologized. It was a really bad mistake so perhaps ABC News should take action? I wouldn't. But lots of folks are asking why is Ross still employed, even quite a few on the left.