Sloppy Media Coverage in the Wake of Virginia Tech Shootings
| Thu Apr. 19, 2007 4:56 PM PDT
In the wake of the media blitz surrounding the Virginia Tech shootings, some are appalled at the airing of the videos, claiming insensitivity. Others may be wondering why the media has reported on the possibility of a backlash against Asians. Why has the media conjured up a scary threat of possible hate crimes with none forthcoming?
I think part of this answer lies in the media's attempt to address the fears of the post 9/11 climate. Many of us who are of Asian background waited with bated breath when the killer was identified as "Asian." That's a pretty damn big category: "Asian" could mean East Asian, South Asian, or Southeast Asian. And for South Asian Americans, vivid memories of post 9/11 backlash loom. People of South Asian descent were the first victims of deadly hate crimes. And just last month, Kuldip Singh Nag—an Indian American who is an Iraq war veteran—was assaulted by the police in Joliet, Ill., for being a "fucking Arab" and a "fucking immigrant."
So media outlets dutifully remind that entire communities cannot be held responsible for atrocities committed by a lone gunman, but meanwhile they are busy constructing and stereotyping the "Korean American community." Take for example this LA Times article. To its credit, the article points out that there is a history of minorities having to bear the brunt of collective punishment (think World War II). It also highlights how some Asian Americans are irritated that their so-called "community leaders" are falling over themselves to "apologize" and voice their "collective guilt." Minorities in this country shouldn't have to "represent" and "distance" themselves from every act that someone who resembles them commits.
But then, the article goes on to say:
For Korean Americans, the sense of shame may be particularly acute because of their cultural commitment to interdependence. "Here in America, we think of ourselves as much more separate and autonomous," said Stanford University professor Hazel Rose Markus, an expert in cultural psychology.
"Foundational to Korean thinking is the sense that you need to … adjust yourself to expectations. It's very, very important that you protect your family face and reputation, recognize that whatever you do has consequences not just for you, but for others as well."
"Korean thinking"? Wasn't the idea to suggest that you cannot make generalizations about the presumed thinking of entire peoples? The "Korean community" is no more cohesive and homogenous than the "Muslim community" or "South Asian community." When the shooters of Columbine went on a rampage, no one in major media outlets quoted "experts" saying, "You see, foundational to white thinking..." They didn't go looking for loosely defined "white community leaders" to gauge the white community's collective response. Describing "Korean thinking" and treating the 1.3 million Korean Americans as a uniform group that has informal "representatives" who speak for them is just sloppy.
—Neha Inamdar
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Virginia Tech (not verified) on Thu Apr. 19, 2007 6:01 PM PDT.
Virginia Tech Killers Hitler Joke
Hmmm... maybe Americans are racists? But's that's a generalization :)
Seriously tho'... I think that one part of it is this whole 24 hour news entertainment thing. They have to fill 24 hours will wall to wall coverage of the latest atrocity or injustice or missing child or whatever the entertainment of the day is... so they just start blabbing on and on and on about whatever "angle" they can think of. One thing is for sure... very little of what they put on is actually news.
Comrade Doh's comment is typical of too many "Asian" Commie spys. When and where will the commies hit next? We must start looking for the Commie sleepers among us. Copycat people are all over. Others enjoy the fame that the news media gives.
Che Doh will have to learn to spell proletariat before being taken seriously. Also medicine.
I agree with both Guy and the author--I think a big part of the problem is the race to say something first, and to keep saying it, even if you have to make it up. What's to blame? Oh, we know he wrote lyrics on his wall, or he posed with a hammer in a manner vaguely resembling the poster for Oldboy, or if all else fails, we'll just go to race. The debates about violence in music, movies, and video games will go on, but the sooner we discard the knee-jerk habit of using race as an explanation, the better.
Yes, we are a violent country, there are a lot of guns, there are a lot of people, there's a lot of strife in this country. But you know, we're a free country, we're pretty much the last free country in the world, and whenever you have a lot of freedom you're going to have a lot of people that abuse that freedom. You have to ask yourself as a society, 'Are we willing to give up a lot of freedoms and become pretty much of a watchdog state, in order to try to prevent most of these?
Well, to be perfectly honest, i'd much prefer having a load of hasstle to get a gun and have a safe society; than a society that is free, yet very dangerous. And by the way your kidding yourself's if you think America is completley free.
It's like argueing that you allowed a firearm, but have insaneley slow speeding laws, seems to be me freedom is given in certain cases.
Anyway, it was a tradgedy. There will always be people that will identify with this instance and hurl rascist abuse, but these people are clueless, and weak minded to be influenced so easily by a programme.
We are ever admonished to respect differences, to be tolerant of what we might think of as bizarre behavior. We are told that among the worst of sins is to be judgmental about how others behave. Multiculturalism is what we are about. Diversity is our strength. All cultures, all people, all lifestyles are to be treated equally. At Blacksburg on Monday, we learned that there is such a thing as too much tolerance.
