Kerby Anderson

Matt Taibbi worked for many years as a contributing editor for Rolling Stones and now is the publisher of Racket News. After the horrible news of the school shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school, he made an insightful comment about the way the media covers such issues. “You don’t know who’s crazier, the shooter or some of the people who are talking about the shooter.”

His comment seemed to sum up all the media commentary that occurs after any tragic event like a mass shooting. First, there is the confusion on the part of the legacy media about motive. Certainly, we don’t want to jump to false conclusions. But media practitioners generally default to: “his motive was unclear.”

Whether it is a mass shooting or a terrorist attack, my quick answer to motive is simple: “the shooter wanted to kill people.” In the case of the Minnesota shooter, we had some clear indications since the gun magazines said such things as “Kill Donald Trump” and “Israel Must Fall” and “Where is your God?” These might have been an indication of motive.

Second, as soon as the tragedy is announced, one side will talk about the need for more gun control (even though Minnesota has more restrictive gun laws and even a red flag law). The other side might focus on mental health issues. A third side might focus the need for better school security. A fourth commentary might lament the increasing amount of visual violence in the media.

The cacophony of voices and opinions should be a clear indication that there are no simple solutions. But that doesn’t stop the media and their experts for expressing them long before the funerals for those who died at the hands of a deranged shooter.

We need to acknowledge that there are no simple solutions, and we need to postpone such discussions and debates until a few days after the tragedy.