Have you ever logged onto your social media platforms of choice after a tragic even occurs in this country and have an overwhelming feeling of deja vu take over? This situation is not unique to you. In fact, the media strategically uses specific language and phrases to create a narrative that they have the ability to control. The American people get so absorbed in the rhetoric that they become mindless echos to what their news sources are feeding them.
This, of course, is just my opinion. It makes sense, right? The invention of the 24-hour news cycle created a demand for content at every hour of the day. News-media sources are for-profit, so they have the incentive to entertain and attract new and old viewers. It only makes sense that they would continue to sing the song that you want to hear, wouldn't it?
I argue, however, that you didn't know you liked that song until you've heard that song a million times echoed by friends, family, celebrities, coworkers, professors, etc. You may agree with their message; you may not understand their message. As long as the message sounds good, you will listen.
When the tragic event of a mass shooting occurs, we get to hear two tunes. The first is the tune sung by the left that stricter gun restrictions would be the solution to the issue. We hear it all the time. We compare international gun laws and compare them to the number of gun deaths per capita. We demonize guns and the song ends with the conclusion that if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence.
The second song is a rendition from the right that claims that more guns would prevent mass shootings. They clap their hands and yell from the national stage that they have the Constitutional right to bear arms and that guns are essential for safety and security. They argue that a good person with a gun would be able to put an end to a bad person with a gun.
Personally, I could tap my feet to both of these jams. They are both valid arguments. If there were not guns, there would be no gun related deaths. If a good person had a gun, they would be able to put an end to a bad person's massacre without causing any harm to innocent bystanders. I agree. We're never going to in a world that has no guns and no person is either good or bad. These arguments are simply fun thought experiments that would have to control for so many factors to have any standing. Therefore, they are impossible to implement into reality because, in reality, hardly anything is controllable.
Then we sprinkle in a couple remixes. We hear how the causes of these mass shootings are violent video games, mental illnesses, Donald Trump, and some have even gone as far to suggest that it is the legalization of marijuana in the United States. Fine. These are definitely factors that should be considered if we are assuming there is a blanket solution to ending mass shooting in this country.
However, the media rhetoric has strayed us away from the conversation that there could possibly not be a blanket solution to mass shootings. Each case is an individual case, yet we compare them all to previous cases. We go through the same songs and dances every single time and we have gotten no where. A wise person once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
This is what the media is doing to us: We enter the same cycle every time and end up with the same results. The media does not want these issues solved because then they would have less content. They would not be as entertaining. A media that unites is not a media that survives.
Comments