Journalism and the American public may be forever altered from the complete neglect of truth and humanity that prevailed days after the July 20 Aurora, Col. shootings.
When the news first broke of the tragedy, the public immediately wanted to know how such a thing had happened. We sat glued to our screens, read every scrap of information we could in attempt to understand what exactly happened on that night in Theater 9. How could such a thing could happen, and who was responsible?
The more we learned, the more we wanted to know about the victims, our fellow Americans. Who were they, what kind of lives did they live, what were their jobs, their passions? Who did they love and who loved them? We wanted to better know these victims, to understand and better connect with them. To better empathize with their pain and the pain of their families.
What we received from the media was not memorials by loving families or exposés on the victims and calls for prayer. In the hours following the first reports of the shooting, the media, politicians and lobbyist began the age-old debate over gun control. Politicians used the horrific Aurora tragedy to better their campaign by hoping to force opponents to blunder and polarize constituents. Lobbyist for gun control and the NRA crowd jumped on the chance to use the shootings as a prime example for their soapbox. The media jumped on the issue since nothing sells like a juicy hot topic, even an old rehashed one like gun control.
What is there left to be said? Gun control activists claim the need for stricter laws prohibiting the sale of certain guns and ammunition as well as harsher regulation of sales. Those of a certain psychological or criminal background should be restricted from ownership. Who needs, they ask, 100 round drums or magazines that hold anything over the standard eight bullets? Automatic or even semi-automatic weapons are tools of destruction only and not intended or needed by the average sportsman.
Second Amendment activists argue that no amount of laws will stop criminals from obtaining weapons. Would-be shooters are already prepared to break the law, and no amount of paperwork would stem that.
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to own and bear arms not simply for recreational purposes, but also to deter the United States from becoming a tyrannical police state. Founding fathers knew the importance of being able to arm a militia. Laws are already in place to protect citizens from gun violence. Any more would only serve to defy the constitution and disarm and leave unprotected law abiding-citizens.
The arguments go on. Plenty of space could be filled arguing the merits or disadvantages of gun control. It is a complex and timely issue. However, the question at hand is that in the wake of such a tragedy, is it the proper time to hold such an argument? Should media outlets and politicians use a time of national grief to grandstand for their own financial or political gain?
What Americans saw after the July 20 shootings was a blatant use of sensationalism by the media. Instead of directing their viewers and readers to pray for the families and celebrate the lives lost, the shootings served as a catalyst for political gain. Journalists are supposed to report the full story to the public while remaining respectful to their subjects. Steering conversation away from the victims in a time of national grief is both inhuman and unethical.
While arguments should never be silenced on such a potent issue, they should be raised at a tactful, respectful time. The immediate wake of such a horrific tragedy is not the time to talk politics.