The Sherpa’s Second Serve: Too much sniper as mass media drives to make a buck

Bloodied and limp, another dead horse lies on the newsroom floor, beaten well beyond recognition.

During the next couple weeks, journalists may give the carcass an occasional kick in the head. But soon enough, the sniper story will be left to rest in peace alongside Gary Condit, the Summer of the Shark and Jon-Benet Ramsey.

The victims’ families will grieve before Larry King or Phil Donahue and in time the analysis, as well as the analysis of the analysis, will come to an end. Unaffected, we will move on to the next story with relative peace of mind. Because rather than personalizing these humans, the intense media coverage actually creates reality show-type characters. The audience is desensitized to an unfortunate point where they can barely distinguish Richard Hatch and Puck from Daniel Pearl and the Shoebomber.

Of course, this disproportionate and irresponsible approach to the news was supposedly buried beneath the rubble of Ground Zero. After 9-11, the media re-dedicated itself to fair and balanced coverage of the global affairs that matter. By “matter,” they must’ve meant global affairs that happen in America, draw ratings and sell newspapers.

An astounding barrage of resources was devoted to sniper coverage. Every news outlet sent at least one reporter to jockey for positioning at press conferences that yielded riveting and informative sound bytes such as “we don’t know” or “it would be inappropriate to comment at this time.” Straight-faced journalists engaged in groundless speculation with “professional profilers,” who seemed no more professional than the average Joes on the street who were repeatedly polled with hard-hitting questions like, “Do you think the sniper will strike again?” and “Are you scared?”

Vague threats were evaluated, dissected and sensationalized. “Your children are not safe anywhere at anytime,” wrote the sniper. Could that mean our children are not safe? Could the child already shot by the sniper mean our children are not safe?

All-sniper, all the time. And oh yeah, in other news there was some AIDS in Africa, global warming was ignored and terrorists blew up Bali. Details at 11. The news outlets that lack the resources to cover those significant stories would have been better served by simply opening their windows and reporting what they saw outside. Chances are, it would’ve been just as newsworthy as most of their sniper coverage.

Already having done all they could to be noticed, journalists suddenly expressed humility and caution when they unwillingly became a part of the story. Gravely concerned, they wondered aloud if their service as a communication line between the sniper and police compromised journalistic ethics. But reluctantly, and with a sense of duty, the media passed along the messages. “We’re not so sure about this one, America, but we’re doin’ it for you!” It was painfully obvious that despite their front of discomfort, most journalists couldn’t have been happier to be at the heart of the story. When someone makes you feel important, it’s a nice ego stroke. Even when the stroking comes from a homicidal nut.

But the media was relaying the sniper’s message all along. Be afraid, people. Be very afraid. It’s a message they adore. North Korea’s got the bomb, Chechen rebels are coming to a theater near you, al-Qaeda’s alive and well, that beef you just ate is poisonous and the neighbor’s about to kidnap your kid. The only way you can stay safe is buy a paper, watch the news ticker and keep your eyes peeled for a white van, while remaining calm and resilient like a good American.

Never before have we felt so helpless, reminded time and again that we are gradually losing control of our lives. There are simply too many people to watch, too many places to hide and too many freedoms to abuse. How can we expect the airlines to keep all those millions of passengers safe every day? How can we expect the cops to secure us from all those millions of sickos? We can’t really, and that’s the sad reality. Although President Bush expressed “confidence” in the law enforcement agencies’ pursuit of the sniper, not many people I know shared that optimistic outlook. With each shooting, I noticed a considerable increase in “fear” and “depression.” But not too much “confidence.”

This is no fault of the involved agencies, nor of Chief Moose, who was the subject of troubling but predictable ridicule and questioning. Like black quarterbacks or black executives, Chief Moose was held to a higher standard and left vulnerable to constant, unsubstantiated second-guessing. Members of the media and general public, none of whom had any true understanding of the investigation, openly wondered if this guy really knew what he was doing. “There’s just … something about him.” Right.

In all likelihood, Chief Moose was simply dealt an extremely difficult case with very few legitimate clues or leads. It isn’t easy to monitor so many people, especially when they’re so well-armed. But don’t tell this to gun activists, who won’t even consider ballistic “fingerprinting” which could have facilitated the sniper’s arrest. Gun-owners deserve their gun and their bullets, and dammit they deserve their privacy, too. They scoff at the mere notion that the availability of guns and ammunition could play any small role in situations like these.

It’s interesting to note how the media portrays children in the Middle East. I recall an MSNBC correspondent who was appalled by a four-year old Palestinian boy using a piece of wood as a toy gun. We cringe in horror at the sight of kids dressed up as suicide bombers. What little monsters! Shame on them for lacking the money to buy “Max Payne” or “Grand Theft Auto” for their PlayStations! Over the next two months, we’ll see countless airings of “A Christmas Story,” in which the main character is a child with a lustful obsession for a toy gun. But that is unquestionably adorable. In America, our love for guns is endearing, healthy and Constitutionally protected, so back the hell off!

However, you wonder if the forefathers, with their infinite and profound wisdom, could’ve predicted any of this. In their wildest dreams, could they have imagined the Washington Sniper, a trench coat mafia or ghetto gang wars? I don’t think so. Nor do I think that while writing the First Amendment, they could’ve imagined a corporate-driven media designed to manipulate the news, alarm citizens and warp reality in order to make an easy buck.