If you go to Huffington Post this morning — a liberal publication, one might argue — the PA stabbing story from yesterday isn’t even above the digital fold. It is on CNN, although it’s not the top story — that’s the search for flight 370. On FOX News, it’s the top story in essentially the “More Links” area.
Now, there’s two ways to look at all this. You can either view it as a semi-media horde, i.e.:
Or you can view it this way:
Here’s a rant about a different aspect of the media coverage, namely that in the absence of true, clarified information, social media becomes an abject train wreck:
Does your station allow 17 reporters and three anchors to crowd the floor of the live set and start shouting over each other and into the camera like desperate stockbrokers on the trading floor their version of the facts as they’re hearing them? “I’m hearing six! Over to weather! Well, I’m hearing five over here at weather! Over to sports! We’re hearing 10 over at sports! Traffic? My Facebook friend’s mother’s cousin’s sisterwife says 20 but my brother’s concubine says 19! And that guy behind the camera is hearing 4! Wait! Wait! –”
Alright, so … let’s say you think the media coverage was less-than-amazing (or less-than-roadblocked). After all, this was a kid in a school with two knives and a “blank expression.” That’s horrifying, no? If you think the media coverage was sub-standard, or at least sub-standard compared to a school shooting, why do you think that is?
1. Is it because the media (a general, collective term) prefers stories involving guns?
2. Is it because of some Second Amendment narrative that may drive up ratings?
3. Is it simply because there were no immediate deaths, and death counts tend to be what drives up the roadblocked-nature of stories?
4. Or is it simply because there were bigger stories to report on?
I don’t really have a specific take — if I had to guess, I’d say that shooting stories are a bit more ratings-heavy than knifing-stories — but if you have one, feel free to share it.