What does it say that our first response to these now all-too-common massacres is that the perpetrator is a "madman?" How does that frame influence immediate news coverage? How does it portray the mentally ill? How does it ignore other issues, such as misogyny and objectification of women?
Fifty years ago, in 1963, the media landscape was still dominated by the printed word, and by the imperative of getting the story right before it was published in early and final editions of America's newspapers.
Once upon a time what you didn't see was sexy. There was just a little less showing and as a result, what showed had impact. The era of the oversharing has descended upon us and bemoan it we may but turn away we do not.
The frantic pace of broadcast journalism is fueled by an eternal need to feed the beast. A beast that never sleeps and is never satisfied. We are often working so hard to get something on air that we forget the impact the images might have on the viewer.
With the exception of Fox News, all media reporters will fill in the time originally allotted to the election with coverage devoted to the possible unearthing of former Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa from a home in Roseville, Michigan.
How can we reclaim civility, decency and harmony when they are at best unnoticed or worse, ignored? As we debate our nation's future, we need the news media to ask the hard questions, not the sensational ones.
"It's pure journalistic olestra. The consistent barrage of 'first 100 days'-related news goes through people so quickly that their heads and now their bodies are unable to properly absorb or digest it all."