Media

I was watching a European discussion of terrorism and media coverage, and one of the presenters mentioned something that got me thinking. He pointed out that in all the big incidents, like the massacre in Paris, the bombing at the rock concert in the UK, and others, there are no images broadcast of the bodies, the injuries, the pandemonium at the scenes, etc. The media hold off on that, in order to avoid "inflamingthe people" and provoking strong responses. Sure, sounds nice. But in the last several years of the Viet Nam War, the media brought all that right into the living rooms of America, and other places, every night. And the antiwar movement grew in support in part due to that publicity. I remember when Life magazine put on its cover the picture of one US soldier who had died the week before, but inside the pictures of the 200+ others who also died that week, to make the impact of the war better felt and understood by everyone. Does anyone remember seeing the pictures of everyone Nidal Hassan murdered shown on a cover or in a TV news show, or the pictures of all the people killed in San Bernardino, or all those killed in the Florida nightclub? I sure don't, now we are restrained and careful to not inflict all that horror on the public. So what is the difference, why was it OK to lay all that trauma on everyone during the war, which is the most guaranteed place there is for trauma, but now we can't do that when totally atrocious horror and trauma are inflicted on innocents here where we live? Because we don't want to inflame people? Maybe people should be inflamed. --Del