I think the significance of the fact that the gentleman who stepped in was a holocaust survivor is nothing more than shear tragic irony. I’m at somewhat of a loss as to why you find that concerning.

What remains of the original post :
I’ve removed this entry, mostly because I am spending too much time monitoring the slimy comments from the Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins.

I suppose we cannot assume that new media will nescessarily approach topics such as these with the sensitivity they deserve or indeed even with responsibility. As we look at the way new-media is interpreting these events, I would like to observe that what gave old media a “voice” in the first place were credibility, responsibility and accountability. These do take time and effort to build.

I suppose we cannot assume that new media will nescessarily approach topics such as these with the sensitivity they deserve or indeed even with responsibility. As we look at the way new-media is interpreting these events, I would like to observe that what gave old media a “voice” in the first place were credibility, responsibility and accountability. These do take time and effort to build.

“so it goes”

You are absolutely wrong in which sense I meant “pious”. You grief was obvious. My point was that your only acceptable response was grief. And anyone who presented a possible solution didn’t really care about the deaths, which is an extremely uncharitable interpretation.

But I’m sure you are a smart, interesting fellow when you aren’t angry at the stupidity of it all. Although, I expect you’ll be angry for a long time.

And Jet, questions about the Sargent Major to one side, what is my “solution.” Not sure how condemnation of those who seek to use the event to forwards their own agenda (and to complete the circle I heaved a heavy object at the radio this AM when a gun control advocate asserted that a knife wielding manic would have led to fewer deaths, as if it is the number of the dead instead of the stupid senselessness of their deaths that matters.

Plus, how on earth do you know that my weeping was “pious,” which I confess I take to mean you doubt its sincerity.

How does someone with as little comprehension of the viseral revolusion that the use of these kinds of tragic events to forward any given policy preference convince Paul to write a song in your honor is beyond me.

In short, sir, go screw.

That is a good point—radio & TV broadcasters cull from the new web technics rather than interview people or record events as they happen. Contra Stuart’s suggestion, this implies that the media will feed off the web. I will be the target—the media points me to the blogs I don’t read. Or maybe not, they might regard blogs, chatrooms, Myspace, etc. as sources not to be fully disclosed, in the way what jihadist websites are referred to by print journalists without listing or linking to the URL.

The crucial event: an anchor reports based on an IMC.

Unchecked crisis-time sources are nothing new. Talk radio? I’m ridiculously aware of the fatuousness of user-generated content: I spend my days trying to teach information literacy to college students. But even in the media outlets “of record”, i.e. the Times (and their “The Victims” feature), they’ve attempted some sense of authenticity through interaction.

And the disparity in coverage and emotive outpouring between the events at Virginia Tech and those of the war aren’t lost on me, especially as I watched the “Writing the Wartime Experience” segment of America at a Crossroads Monday night.

“I sprinted on top of the desk to the door, because the aisle was clogged with people, and I used my foot as a wedge against the door,” recalled Mr. O’Dell. “It was almost like you had to fight for your life. If you didn’t, you died.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18german.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

That “almost” is interesting, since he did have to fight for his life. The way I read it, it means “It was a scene like those ‘fighting for your life’ scenes that you see on TV…”