Is Technology Taking Over the World?

Technology is the most progressive aspect of human intelligence. Although it is man-made, technology is in a totally different bracket from anything else man-made such as shoes, clothes, etc. As we have discussed lately, technology has progressed in a way that news travels faster, people can always know what people are doing or where they are. Plus, technology is literally everywhere. Technology is so progressive and apparent that it has become a part of everyday life such as functioning, planning, listening to music and communicating. Technology has become so innovative that updates for social media sites happen automatically, news is more apparent and reaches a larger crowd, and it draws everyone's attention on a regular basis. I know personally, my phone is glued to my hand. I check it constantly; it holds everything that I need to get through the day, and it can answer all of my questions. While reading about technology somnambulism, I had not realized how much of my daily routines changed based on the progression of technology. Of course I use technology every day, but it did not click that I use technology about 99.9% of the time. One of the concepts presented on page 55 was that "systems we adopt shed their tool-like qualities to become part of our very humanity". This was interesting to me because it implies that humans are functioning only because of the vast expansion of technology. It also implies that technology is given human like qualities and values. Are we allowing technology to become a part of our lives, or are we just using it because of its useful nature? If technology ceased today, would the world be able to function thoroughly? My personal answer would be that if everyone solely relies on technology in order to get through the day, it would not be able to function. Will technology keep advancing to the point of taking over the world?

New Ways To Do The Same Thing

One of the topics that Langdon Winner explains in his essay, Technologies as Forms of Life, that most intrigued me is his claim that "[most] changes in the content of everyday life brought on by technology can be recognized as versions of earlier patterns" (55). The example Winner gives is the dependency that parents have on cartoon shows on television in order to keep their child occupied. This example got me thinking of both consequences that technology has had on our way of doing every day tasks. For example, our methods of communication has changed drastically with the advancement of technology.

Before humans would send letters, then telegraphs, beeper messages, and most recently, emails and text messages. We have always had the necessity to send a message to someone but our method of doing it has changed throughout the years. We have now a faster, more efficient way to relay messages between short and long distances. We have gone from a handwritten letter taking multiple months to be delivered through a land or marine mail service to sending a text message that takes seconds to reach anywhere in the world through a tiny, handheld machine. The advancement of these technologies have added new activities into our lives.

However, not all adaptations have had positive consequences on our patterns. Going back to the earlier example of the parent's task of entertaining their child, children used to be able to go outside and interact with other children such as neighbors and family members. Now, parents have resorted to handing their child a smartphone or tablet in order to calm and entertain them. This seems to cause children to focus on the small screen in front of them. The effects of this new pattern change is still too early to notice but what good can come from a generation of children addicted to technology and not developing interpersonal skills?

Phones Are Taking Over My Family Dinners!

In the reading about technological somnambulism, there is a part where it discusses technological determinism. Langdon Winner stated that it was the idea that technological innovation is the basic cause of changes in society. I agree with this statement because I could walk into any restaurant today and mostly people would be on their phones playing games, instagraming, tweeting, and/or texting. Before smart phones, it was considered rude to give your attention to other things while in the presence of others. However, when smart phones were created it became a norm to be on the phone when you are with other people. Recently, a friend of mine went out to dinner with her mom and had to beg her mother to talk to her instead of being on her phone tweeting and playing games. Like it says in the book, technology can be used "well or poorly" and "good or bad," it just depends on the person. Yes, having smart phones helps us interact with people around the world, but what about the people who are right in front of you. Sixty years ago, family dinners use to be about bonding with each other, but now it is about taking selfies and getting as many likes as possible. It is great that we can interact with people who are a billion light years away from us, but I think we are neglecting the people who are actually right in front of us. Then again, most likely the people who are right in front of us are doing the same thing which is facebooking and instagraming. Being on the phone has become the social norm so people do not even realize what they are doing. I think people are losing basic mannerisms because of their overuse of technology in today's society.

Who Is Bullying Me???

      We are all used to seeing big tough guys picking on small/frail freshmen. We are also used to seeing the "not so pretty" teenage girl getting targeted by the more popular "it" girls of the school. Bullying in earlier times was more of a "physical" thing. Bullies had to be face to face with their victims in order to for the bullying to take effect. Bullies had to be in the presence of their victims in order to humiliate them and cause physical/psychological harm. An actual face and identity was placed with bullies 50 years ago. With modern technology, bullies are able to do their dirty work anonymously. Due to this, bullying has become a much more severe issue today. Bullies no longer have to find their victims hiding in the bathrooms or running down the halls to reach safety. Instead, they can bully from the behind the comfort of their computer screen. They can just log onto Facebook or Instagram and start posting.
       Not surprisingly, with the anonymous bullying occurring today there is a lack of remorse or worry concerning potential consequences. Personally speaking, it seems as though people on the internet are a new type of mean. Bullies on the internet are way more vicious and harsh. These people are quick to attack, easy to anger, and take cruel to a whole new level. In today's internet world, bullies are relentless and they sometimes even bully to the point of causing suicide in their peers. Due to the technology at our hands nowadays, bullies are able to almost stalk their victims because it is so easy to do with people using the internet to post their location, what activity they're currently doing , etc. As discussed in the text, technology( in this case the internet) is not intrinsically "good" or "bad" but rather it is the people who use technology that use it poorly or use it well who make it good or bad.  What I took from today's reading is that in my topic of bullying, technology is not to blame behind why bullying has increased so much or why teenagers are committing suicide but rather it is the people to blame for using the technology in such a poor way.

Are We Creating Technology or is Technology creating us?

We are surrounded by technology in such a vast way that we can no longer avoid it.  It becomes part of our everyday lives, regardless of our opinions on it.  Technologies such as Facebook and other forms of social media have advanced our reaches of communication; we can connect with more people and share more ideas than was possible ever before.  We have the sense that WE create technology to aid us in our everyday lives; don't we come up with ideas to make life simpler and then physically create the devices?  As was stated in Langdon Winner's "Technologies as Forms of Life," Most of the reasons that we create new technologies is based off of our typical activity.  Humans have always eaten, walked, and worked along with so many other basic actions; the technologies that we produce are, in effect, to help us succeed and become more efficient in these very old and basic tasks.  Although, in certain cases, the technology that was created to do one thing ends up working better for a task that it was not created for; this produces unexpected results that can lead to the alteration of basic human behavior.  We may not notice the evolution of our actions due to the device or technology becoming integrated into our lives.  As we discussed in class, humans tend not to pay much attention to the magnificent machines that we have at our disposal.  When you ride in a car, you don't typically think, "Wow, it is so amazing that I am riding in a metal box that is able to travel so fast with such little effort."  When we get on our smartphones, we don't get excited about what a cool device it is that we hold in our hands that can provide us with more information than the human brain can hold.  I know that I, personally, go through life without paying close attention to how the technology of today has changed my behavior throughout the years.

I am very interested in how technology has changed our communication abilities.  We have phones, social media, and Skype as well as so many other communication technologies that affect our ability to connect with others.  The creation of these devices have indeed increased communication abilities and greatly benefited the majority of the world through their ease of use and the lightning speed at which they travel.  Humans can contact anyone that they need to, no matter how many miles apart that they are, and that is really an amazing accomplishment for society.  Although, I must say that I also believe that technology has created a void when is comes to face to face communication.  If we look back to the old days, people ate dinner together at the table and talked to one another about anything and everything.  Storytelling was a major form of entertainment and communication.  Humans were connected to one another through spoken word and physical actions. In the present, we communicate mostly through text, email, or social media.  When families eat dinner, very rarely do they sit together without the television on and speak to one another.  We entertain ourselves by watching movies, playing video games, or being on our phones.  Don't get me wrong, I do think that technology has brought forth a major advancement in communication, but I think that it has caused some people to "sleepwalk" through their lives.  More people consider themselves socially awkward during these technological times than ever before.  Maybe it's because they don't get as much practice communicating in a personal face to face way.  Humanity has much to improve when it comes to physical communication, although we have mastered the art of technological communication.

How We Laugh

I am currently fulfilling my general education requirement in Ancient History. After getting passed all the boring lectures and readings these last couple of weeks it is actually quite interesting to learn about the early struggles of humans. They were so worried about keeping records and writing everything they did to keep order and to be able to run empires based on obedience and order. So it got me thinking on how we communicate now.

When looking at the impact technology has had on the life we live now we never think of how technology has changed every language. More words have been added to people’s vocabularies strictly dealing with technology. It is safe to say that not only has technology changed how fast we communicate or how often but also introduced a whole new language. Social media and text messages have introduced a whole new dynamic to the language of how anyone communicates with each other.

Imagine a world without “LOL”.  Technology has paved a tremendous short cut to more efficient ways to use language in a written form. It is mind blowing to think that before phones or social media there was really no way to show someone you are laughing in written form. We take the “haha” or  “lol” as something so second nature and just something we do but when you really sit and think, how would you express that through written form. Would you just say “I am laughing…”?

Another pretty interesting example is the word Google. We have transformed it from a proper noun to a verb from just simply using it over and over again. All this has been done by the impact of technology. We as humans have not really sat down and made decisions of this is how we are going to write/spell something or if we are going to change the attribute of a word. It has just happened over time.

The Trouble With Social Media Is.....

"We have already begun to notice another view of technological development, one that transcends the empirical and moral shortcomings of cause-and-effect models. It begins with the recognition that as technologies are being built and put to use, significant alterations in patterns of human activity and human institutions are already taking place [...] Technological innovations can radically alter common patterns and on occasion generate entirely new ones, often with surprising results." In the section of his essay titled "Beyond Impacts and Side Effects", Langdon Winner asserts this theory about how new technology is shaping our daily lives. The examples he gives aren't wrong, but while reading this I felt like there were other examples more relevant to daily life that proved his theory with more significance and relatability than how often we watch television or transportation. The example I'm talking about is how social media and the anonymity it offers us has changed the way we approach conversation, specifically when the conversation turns into a debate. In class today, we mentioned how a simple comment can spark heated, and sometimes violent, responses that are often extreme compared to what the comment was originally about.

The woman in this picture is model Stefanie Michova, who's dating a famous Korean rapper. The comments below are from anonymous individuals on the internet (referred to as "netizens" in slang) after they saw her in a video portraying a flirtatious relationship with two Korean artists. I used this example because the hate and threatening comments the netizens left to her were definitely not things they would ever say to Stefanie's face. In fact, these are things they might not even dare to say in the presence of other people unless they were certain the group they were in felt just as strongly as they did. But violent comments like these have become a common part of digital interactions, even on social media like Facebook where one is usually restricted to using their own name. Through digital interactions, people are able to say whatever they want without fear of being held accountable for their words later because the people they're speaking to have no idea who they are. The fans that left these comments are most likely regular South Koreans that are fans of the artists Stefanie appeared with, meaning she could go her entire life without ever meeting them. Even if she did, she couldn't know they were responsible for the hateful comments because the names and photos used weren't their own. The internet, specifically social media, has allowed individuals to hide behind false names and black and white silhouettes and verbally assault and defame whoever they want without ever facing any form of punishment for their actions. Sure there will be someone that responds to their comments like Stefanie did, but that doesn't guarantee that they won't keep leaving similar comments. Even if the social media administration were to deactivate the accounts used, netizens could easily create another account and leave the same hateful comments as long as they have another phone number or email not attached to a social media account. What's alarming about this recent development is the fact that there is no guarantee that these netizens can't always be prosecuted for the consequences of their actions. In America, this is called cyber bullying which is now punishable by law. But how do you deal with a cyberbully when the victim is an American student and the bully is someone posting with a false name, from who knows what city, state, or country? They could be anyone from any country, and that likelihood actually increases with international articles like this one.

(P.S. If anyone wants to see the full article, here's a link.)

Don't Blame Facebook

In Monday's class, we discussed the fundamental question of the inmate morality (or immorality) of technology. Basically, the question asks, does technology itself hold a good or bad value? My claim today is that the technology does not have morality or immorality, which then I am connecting to the social media, Facebook. My reasoning for this is that the uses for such "bad" technology, such as bombs or guns, cannot be boxed into a good or bad use, because there will always be cases for both good and bad uses of the technology. For guns, killing or pain is always the outcome. Sometimes, it is for evil, like in a robbery or murder. On the other hand, it can be for good, like in self defense or justice.

In the case of Facebook, there are many positive outcomes, as well as many negative ones. Whether or not the bad outweigh the good, it all depends on how the user navigates Facebook. Bad outcomes of Facebook that were suggested in class were things such as: it can track wherever the user may be, the comment section of pictures or statuses house all kinds of illogical and brutally harsh comments, a.k.a. cyberbullying, or being subject to unattainable standards that you see of someone online. Some of the good outcomes said in class were things such as: freedom of expression, value of communication, or the community aspect.

The reason I don't think we should blame Facebook for negative outcomes is because the user who creates a Facebook account agrees to all the terms of being on the site, both legally (like the privacy issue), and socially (such as the unattainable standards). The user can unfriend (or even unfollow, while still remaining friends) whomever gives him/her unattainable standards. The user can turn off the tracking in the Messenger app.

Let's not blame Facebook for things we can control.

How Dangerous is Sleepwalking?

I feel like we really have become so accustomed to all of the technology around us that we don't even realize most times how often we actually use it until we no longer have it. Sleep walking through life because we rely so heavily on technology is really sad, but if you think more about how and why we rely on technology you might disagree. If we get stranded, if gun fire breaks out, if we see a person bleeding out on a side walk, or see a cop beating a person up. We automatically look for our phones to record, cal for help, google what to do, or just ask Siri. Now all of those incidents sound really extreme but they have all happened recently and being able to quickly communicate via social media or how ever it may be, smart phones make us feel safe because for most of us we like knowing that our loved ones aren't that far away, or that safety for us or someone else isn't that far. So yes, while getting lost can be fun and regular everyday life is sually pretty boring but these things do happen to us and we want to be safe so sometimes seepwalking through life is dangerous but sometimes its comfort zone and it keeps us safe. So it's up to us to keep it on the safe side and not get super invested in technology and sleep walk into a hole or something. =]

Help! My toaster is trying to take over the world.

The discussion in class on Monday, was does technology have ethics, that is to say is technology good or bad. I tend to be on the fence that says, no technology is inanimate object and is neither good nor bad. It is the use of the inanimate object by a conscious guided being that is either good or bad. That being said  I'm pretty sure my toaster is out to get me, the speed at which burnt toast is projected from it heated coils could be considered lethal. But is my toaster a thinking being bent on my destruction or is it the many years of abuse from a family of four pounding on the side of demanding toast and jam. When I think about good or bad, inanimate objects do not come to mind. I feel that to be good or bad is a distinct conscious guided action, this is something my toaster does not posses. Where the question get a little blurrier is when I factor in AI, but does it? Supposedly AI will happen spontaneously, many years ago I was afraid of a spontaneous Kirby (the furry little toys in the 90's that could learn supposedly) rising up from the deepest depths of my toy box and demand to know why I don't play with him anymore, but alas that did not happen.  If AI does happens then it would be a thinking machine one that would be able to think critically and if one thinks critically; would that be considered the beginning of a conscious?  If so, then conscious of the machine could be good or bad, and the ramification of that are quite horrifying i.e. sky net and the destruction of the whole human race.( I may have some deep seeded issues with world domination) And so to repeat myself once more, I do not think inanimate object are neither good nor evil, I think it is the one controlling said object that is either good or evil.  Honestly I can only pretend to have the answers in truth I mostly wrong and I'm OK with being wrong. But if I am I expect help from everyone if my toaster decides to take over the world.

"Technologies as Forms of Life"

     Two of the claims Winner made in "Technologies as Forms of Life" that I found particularly intriguing are 1) that the disconnect between the maker and the user of technologies is at least partially to blame for the misuse, or bad use, of those technologies, and 2) that technology shapes our world, creates a new world, even, and yet we still view it as nothing more than a simple tool. Computers, advances in biochemistry, physics, and all the things we take for granted as a regular part of every day life have been developed, and are still developing, at exponential rates; yet there have been almost no thoughts given as to why we created these things or the possible implications that may not be their intended uses.

     I think there is some truth to what Winner said about the disconnect between the maker and the user being to blame for the misuses of technology; I don't, however, think that disconnect can be the entirety of the reason. Someone can reasonably expect to make a breakthrough in viral genetics without worrying about it being weaponized. If the person's intent was to find a way to cure the common cold, she probably isn't thinking about biological warfare. I don't believe we can expect the scientist to take the blame for someone else creating a weapon using her work; by the time someone else is through using the research, that person has now created a new technology, and s/he must be the one to take responsibility for that. Adding onto this, I do believe we as a society have an obligation to take a level of responsibility for what people create, whether they're meant to be used or actually used for good or bad. It's the same argument used when talking about gun policies; we take some responsibility for allowing these individuals access to weapons, and then we talk about what can be done, what we should have done, to prevent crises like that.

     It astounds me how true it is that we hardly think about the technology we're using as more than a tool; the story of the astronaut at the beginning is the perfect example of how we tend to substitute experiences with technology for experiences with natural phenomena, a point that lends itself to the title of the essay. While these may seem to be conflicting ideas, it becomes apparent that the astronaut, while unintentionally substituting the technology for the experience, was not really seeing the technology as more than a simple tool. It was a means to an end; it was to prepare him for space, but somewhere during his training, using the machines became routine, like using our cellphones today. How many of us think about the fact that the technology we hold in our hands on a daily basis is more advanced than that which was used to send people into space? How many of us think about how amazing it is that we're able to communicate instantaneously with people thousands of miles away? More to the point, how many of us spend time (outside of this class) thinking about the long term implications of all this, the technology itself, its uses, the people using it?

Roanoke Shooting

I just saw the video of the shooting from the gunman's perspective before posting my reflection. I do not have any social media websites so I had a choice of whether I wanted to see the video or not. At first, I really did not want to see the video because I felt it would be disrespectful to the people who were killed and I did not want to add to the gunman's fame. However, after hearing the discussion in class, I felt that it was important for me to see the video. After watching the video, I was horrified. Before watching the video, I knew that something very sad and tragic happened but seeing the video heightened the intensity of the murders for me. As of now, I have mixed emotions of whether or not the media should show videos like this to the public. Half of me still feels like it is wrong and disrespectful to show the end of someone's life because once it is on the internet, it will stay there forever and I feel like that will be a constant reminder to the family of what happened. On the other hand, I think people should see videos like this because shootings and killings are happening so often that people may be starting to brush it off like it is nothing. I think when people actually see someone being killed, it will make them realize that these are real people who had families, jobs, and their whole life ahead of them until something horrific and tragic happens to them. What was so creepy to me was that Alison Parker and Adam Ward were just doing their jobs like they did everyday and Vester Flanagan unexpectedly starts shooting them. It just made me feel like this could happen to anyone, including me because they were just going about their normal lives not expecting to be killed that tragic day.

Random Thought

The shooting that happened in Virginia was the most intimate act that most people have ever seen of such a crime. The issue is, that more people are worried about the less important angles of the issue trying to avoid the problem at hand. 

There needs to be a radical change in who can have access to a gun. Obviously, getting rid of guns will not eliminate all crime but such a intimate event like the shooting should grab the attention of everyone even more if past events haven't already. Random shooting will be less likely to occur if guns weren't handed out to everyone who thought they deserve one.

-Luis

Roanoke Shooting

 The Roanoke shooting was something i found quite tragic and shocking to witness. in yesterday's discussion in class, I came to the conclusion that technology should not be blamed for this crime. grant it, Twitter was used for exposure and to gain attention, it was not the source of the problem. CNN in my personal opinion should not show this at all and if people wish to see the video, they can look it up on their own time. The media shouldn't hammer down the image of this in peoples' minds. this will cause copycats and the discomfort of those that watch; especially the family members of  the shooter and loved ones of the victims.
   If it wasn't for technology and the former employee of the news station wanting so much attention, perhaps it would've been harder to track him if he didn't attempt to kill himself. in situations like this social media was a tool used to track down crime. Law enforcement recognize this fact and use technology to further their investigations that we as citizens wish to be handled in a timely manner. If such tools were more harmful than good, they wouldn't use them. Of course social media and such can be used for evil, but what in this world cannot or hasn't been used in a perverse way, although its true nature is to benefit lives?
   In short, we need to realize understand that all we can do in the future is observe and take matters more seriously and pay more attention to those around us and who we claim to associate with. in the end, some things we won't be able to predict, but as along as we are vigilant, we will avoid a lot of future tragedies.

Brock's Thoughts on the Roanoke Shooting

The shooting that occurred in Roanoke, while a horrible tragedy, was disturbing for two main reasons to me. First of all, obviously, people were murdered in cold blood. Murder of any kind always brings enough pain and suffering on its own. But more than that, these murders could clearly be heard happening on live television. So second of all, technology broadcasting these murders for all to witness (at least partially) makes the situation that much more horrible, especially for the families of the victims. Whether or not the footage should've been taken down, I'm not completely sure about how I feel. As it originally happened on live TV, I feel like people have the right to see it. But on the other hand, due to the violent and chilling nature of the video, I feel like people shouldn't be exposed to that. Only if they desire to view the footage, should they actually see it. Therefore I suppose I feel like it should be available for viewing to the general public, but not be available on sites designed to expose people information such as Facebook or Twitter. Other than that, I only feel sad that this tragedy happened and I'm disturbed by the intimacy technology brings us to this horrible violence.

WBDJ Shooting

This Wednesday Vester Lee Flanagan (AKA Bryce Williams) filmed himself shooting Alison Parker, Adam Ward, Vicki Gardner. Parker and Ward passed away. In addition to posting the film to social media, he made constant updates to his social media accounts regarding the shooting. According to the tweets that he had made he shot Parker and Ward for revenge. Flanagan said that Parker had made racist comments towards him, and was also upset that Ward had gone to human recourses after having worked with Flanagan once.

After this tragic event, people are accusing social media for various things. It's obvious that the killer was proud of the killings, and by watching and re-watching the videos we are almost giving him what he wants. Technology is definitely a helpful and useful media, but sometimes it can be used in inappropriate ways. The films posted online on the shootings were rather shocking, but otherwise they had no real value. What did we gain by watching the videos? There was no mystery regarding the nature of the shooting. There was no part that the public needed to see. In my opinion, the video should have been taken down, at the very least for the family's sake.

Guns kill people

Jumari brought up a great point in class: Twitter and Facebook are not the first media outlets, therefore they cannot be blamed for crime. Flanagan certainly wanted infamous attention, for reasons most cannot comprehend, but his predecessors could write letters to newspapers, call or fax in threats, find SOME means of making their crime known, etc.  The latest social media makes self-promotion easy, but it is not accurate to say it insights crime of this nature. 

There are a variety of opinions about Roanoke: we debate if graphic content should be shown, and if so, how often? We debate how we would like to be remembered, famous for our death caught on tape or sugarcoated in a peaceful obituary. We debate the extent of freedom of speech: what is the difference between a dumbass troll and an authentic threat? Something we are not addressing is easy gun access and the American mass shooting epidemic.

Though Flanagan targeted two people he knew, he claimed he admired the Virginia Tech shooter, saying, "That's my boy right there." There have been ample amounts of mass shootings since Columbine; copycat crime? Perhaps. Easy accessibility to the legal purchase of guns, improper background checks, mental illness under the radar? Probably. 

Our classroom discussion, as well as the discussions sweeping the nation, are insightful: but often we talk about what is easy to talk about: "Hey, we should remember the victims instead of focusing on this bastard!" Okay, I agree: I am sensitive to the unexpected loss of innocent life; but these losses will continue if we do not say what is hard to say when these incidents arise (often). A disproportionate amount of homicides will continue in the United States if we fail to address HOW these people are dying: people pull triggers, but guns kill people. 

WDBJ Killings

The question that arises from the WDBJ murders is a difficult one. Out of respect to the victims and their families, I absolutely think the video from Flanagan's perspective should be taken down. There is nothing to be gained from watching Parker's and Ward's deaths; in fact, I believe watching the shooter's video is only feeding his perverse desire to share his crime with the world. But if that video were to be removed from the public eye, how would that affect technology later on? Mirkinson brings up a valid point in his article, "to withhold relevant information because it is difficult to handle is to tell a kind of lie about the world". If the media were to permanently remove the Flanagan video from the internet, it would be out of good intentions towards the Ward and Parker families, and it would be a service to the rest of the public as well. There are people that could be permanently traumatized by watching that video, and there are people that might have been reminded of a past trauma by watching, especially if they weren't given a choice. However, if the Flanagan video is removed from public access, couldn't the media do the same with videos documenting police brutality? There have been videos posted of Sandra Bland before she died in jail, the harassment of black teenagers swimming in Texas, and other incidents of police brutality all over tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook. Without those videos as proof, it would be so much easier for the public to deny that America has a very real, very alarming police brutality problem. After all, pictures can be faked, and what they show you isn't always what really happened. Without the videos, all we would have are testimonies that could be easily ignored or refuted because who would admit to violently discriminating against American citizens? In short, the WDBJ killings leave the media in a difficult position. Of course, they can stop posting the video on their news feeds (I don't see why circulating the video every hour is even necessary), but taking it down leaves room for other videos in the future to be taken down. And these videos might not be senseless violence like the Flanagan video, something no one needs to see, but more proof that America has a very real problem and we need to start addressing it. Not just online and in social debates, but in public policies and state laws. 

Roanoke

We all agree that the shooting in Roanoke was a horrible thing, but honestly, do we think many of us will remember it a year from now? Some of us may, if only because the murderer did something unique. If it weren't for that (and maybe even with that) most of us will still discard the story to the recesses of our minds and never remember it again. Stories like that have become too normal. We see them every day on the news, every time we turn on our television: more bombings in the Middle East, more local murders, more national higher-profile murders, more plane crashes, more [insert horrible thing here].

The difference about the Roanoke shooting is that 1) it was targeted at specific individuals, even though another woman was caught in it, and 2) the killer live Tweeted it and posted his video to FaceBook. This seems to me like an obvious cry for attention, and I'm wondering why we are giving it to him. He undoubtedly wanted to create maximum shock. I'm not suggesting that the shooting shouldn't be aired on the news; I'm all for everyone knowing everything. What I've noticed is we have a habit of focusing on the murderer instead of the victims. The victims are given a line or two in each article, and then the rest of the article is all about the shooter. I understand that it's sensationalism and everyone wants to know what would make someone want to go kill two people and injure another, but it seems like we aren't really acknowledging that two people lost their lives. Two innocent people are dead and a bunch more lives are irreparably damaged because of one man.

Shootings in the Media

I was very shocked by the double murders on live television. I actually saw the video of the shooting and it gave me chills. As a viewer you know how the story ends so it's very tragic to see Alison Parker and Adam Ward just doing their normal everyday jobs with no idea that they were living their final moment on Earth. It's very disturbing to realize that the last moments of their lives are being posted for the world to see. As a viewer, I felt the urge to somehow warn them or to give them some type of signal to let them know what was about to happen. This is a feeling I am sure many other viewers experienced. Personally speaking, I have never seen anything like that before. I've never actually witnessed anyone being shot at, let alone murdered. I think the fact that this video is being broadcasted for the world to see is disrespectful on many levels. If I were to be shot at I would not want the crime being played on loops for the world to see. I feel that people should not focus on the very last moments of the lives of Alison Parker and Adam Ward. It is very tragic to witness how frightened Alison Parker was at the moment she was targeted.
I think that these type of stories should not be constantly hyped up. With the killer being identified, I don't see why news channels like CNN feel the need to continuously show the video. They are not showing the video to catch the murderer. It seems like the video is being shown to draw in more viewers rather to actually inform people. I strongly believe the media should take into consideration the feelings of the families of the victims. Surely no parent wants to turn on the television and see the murder of their child. No parent wants to constantly see their child gunned down every time they switch on the television or log on to the internet. The media needs to understand that these were real people. These were humans and they should be remembered as such, not as double homicide victims.