Please read the several comments I've posted below, as they better explain what I mean.
No, I just think they're fucked up individuals
To those attributing it solely to their psychological state- yes, there's no denying that is a HUGE factor, but things like this are almost never that simple. People need incentive; by doing something so public and dramatic they know they're guaranteed to become legendary in a way.
Well said! As I said in my previous comment however, I do not deny that the circumstances of the individual's life are the main factor. What I'm saying is, if the media contributed to the individual's actions in any way, it would have been through news outlets rather than TV and movies like many like to believe.
It is not necessarily that it is being glorified by the media, but there is a large amout of people in one place for them to kill. But, I agree that it is not from the violence of movies.
I just looked at the source, and reading it in a new light I somewhat agree.
They sensationalize the whole situation, market it. "Glorify the killers in the guise of explaining them." Giving the killers the attention they've craved. I don't like how that's happening. How almost everything is blamed but the killer himself. Sympathizers, people attributing the whole thing to a mental breakdown, etc.
I still think it should be discussed and not hidden, but I think there needs to be less glorification. Less "trying to get into the killer's psyche."
I was reading something that said we need to put more focus on the lives of the victims, rather than the killers, and I liked that idea.
Keeping something a secret doesn't keep it from happening, and ignoring something doesn't stop it. The media actually shows the public's stance, as in it is wrong to kill and you will be publicly punished for it. If the news didn't report it maybe people wouldn't think it's as big a deal to commit those actions.
There's a quote from the dark knight... "some men just want to watch the world burn". although not strictly true in this case, some men (like the shooter) want to watch the world that was so cruel to them for so long suffer back. he was a smart guy; he made it into medical school. he knew exactly what he was doing when he executed his extremely elaborate plans, which if they had been completely successful, would have made this situation even more devastating. he obviously wanted media glory, even if it was a result of infamy. every person in the us will probably know his name. he's a main topic of conversation. and most of all, he's rejuvinated the massive shitstorm that is privacy (especially from unreasonable search and seizure) rights.
If the media didn't gorily glorify killers of this caliber, he would have done something else to get revenge, and very few things he could have done would have resulted in so many dead+wounded, and an ensuing national (and world) shitstorm.
And as an added bonus, he metaphorically shit on corporate hollywood's face.
and i forgot to mention, as mentioned by OP, he also has jumpstarted the shitstorm that is the fight over whether violence in videogames and movies makes violent people. which, from the joker comment and (incorrrectly dyed) hair, was EXTREMELY deliberate.
For those who aren't looking at the source, please read:
“The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. “Wouldn’t you say,” she asked, “that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?” No, I said, I wouldn’t say that. “But what about Basketball Diaries?” she asked. “Doesn’t that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?” The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it’s unlikely the Columbine killers saw it. The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. “Events like this,” I said, “if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia.
(cont.) "... The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn’t have messed with me. I’ll go out in a blaze of glory.”
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of “explaining” them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.”
— Roger Ebert
POTD OF TOMORROW!
and what about games? GTA is a huge influence... especially for developing intellectuals (immature faggots) and allows them to indulge into atrocities such as robbing and killing.
Please stop calling it the Aurora shooting. That's just the city that it occurred in, which I happen to live in as well. Don't classify this horrid act by the city.
What about the Columbine shooting? "Don't classify this horrid act by the school" or 9/11, "Don't classify this horrid act by the date"?
On a lighter note, Aurora is a very pretty name for a city
tl;dr Batman shot up a theater.
Seriously? I know you're a troll but show some compassion.
Actually, it was the Joker.