Do such endlessly, reflexively repeated phrases as “school shooting,” “mass shooting,” “active shooter” and “gunman” shortchange the horror of the circumstances and become some ignorable admixture of white noise and crime-procedural cant?
My worry about that is why, earlier in this newsletter, I used “blood bath,” “massacre,” “slaughtered.”
Ugly truths call for ugly terms.
I have used "murderer" and "rabid," among other terms, to describe the killer. Journalists often opt for terms a bit less emotionally charged. It's part of the effort to remain as objective and rational as they can.
But the truth is that SOMEONE will be upset (or pretend to be) whatever sort of diction is chosen. Gun fans will object to the uglier language, in the same way they routinely claim "this is not the time for politics." Gun safety fans will find the more florid diction to be more realistic and more truthful.
This little debate over what sort of language to use when reporting on horrific events is related to new debate over whether the public needs to see the dead children, horribly mutilated... to the point where identification of some victims was not easy.
Would it make a difference if the public could see what gun shots do to actual, innocent humans? I am not sure, which is enough to make me a little depressed.
Once at least some percentage of the population is OK with shrugging off such massacres as routine and unavoidable in a "free" society, are gruesome images going to change any minds?
Our national obsession with guns and insane arguments over a Constitutional amendment that most certainly could not have anticipated numerous and powerful weapons in the hundreds of millions continues.
If there is any good news, schools are closing for the summer.
Those buildings are no longer "target rich."
Soon, the national consciousness will move along.
No comments:
Post a Comment