The latest episode of a man gone crazy was in Nebraska. The story is all too familiar as it has been done several times before. What struck me about this case (and actually ones in the past) was his last statement. "Now I'll be famous". And perhaps in his own demented mind, that is all he was seeking.
But do we have to give him that fame? The first time it happened, many many years ago, it was scandalous. The 100th time it happens, it is still news, and it is still a tragedy, but is the person who did it news? The circumstances are. The reasons for it can be discussed and argued by a layman, but in the end, the name of the person is not that important. The important facts are that "a" gunman killed 8 people, and wounded 5 others.
So I have to wonder myself, are we contributing to this behavior by demanding to know the who (when in the finally tally that is not important)? Should we be feeding this type of behavior by giving them what they want? Their 15 minutes in the spotlight? Or would it be better that we simply ignored the name of the person, and learned about the incident itself?
There are many ways to become famous. This is probably the laziest and worst way. But it works. And while I cannot point a finger at reporters (although as many know I hold them in very low esteem) in this situation, the simple fact is that our (collective) desire for all the gory facts begs for the name of the person. And thus fulfills their last wish.
This is not something that should be legislated. That is even more scary. But perhaps if some reason and sanity could prevail in reporting these stories, and in the publics insatiable desire for the horrid details, we could at least remove one of the legs from the people prone to such actions. If the story would be reported without pictures, and without attribution to the murderer, that might make one or 2 pause and reconsider their need for attention.
Or perhaps not. But at least we should consider voluntary restraint on our parts when reporting or reading about these incidents.