 |
| Clyde Barrow's Colt pistol, via the Waco Tribune Herald |
Former federal District Judge Nancy Gertner, who retired last year to teach at Harvard Law School, recently authored an opinion piece titled "The Media's Reporting on Justice is Criminal" which critiqued the MSM for "beating the drum" in individual cases with formulaic, slanted coverage that misunderstands and distorts the criminal justice process. The reason the media do that, of course, is that it draws more eyeballs, for the same reason people slow down on the freeway to gawk at a gruesome accident. And since advertisers follow eyeballs, and advertising revenue is dwindling, in the 21st century the incentive to sensationalize crime for profit has reached heretofore unseen heights. (Witness Nancy Grace.) That's the main reason why the public thinks crime is rising even though crime rates, particularly for violent crimes, are at modern lows.
One person's murderabilia is another person's historical artifact. But neither murderers nor collectors would be able to profit from "murderabilia" if the MSM hadn't beaten them to the punch in profiteering off crime and misery.
.jpg)
7 comments:
How much of the money that people pay to see "old sparky" at the prison museum in Huntsville goes to crime victims? Probably none!
Who does more damage? I say the criminal does. We tend to overlook the thug who pulls the trigger and blame everybody else.
10:53, I realize you repeat the same comment no matter what the subject, but the question posed was whether "murderabilia" peddlers or the MSM are more culpable for profiteering off victims' misery. The murderer sitting in prison can't control what the media does, or the auctioneer. That's on them.
The Murderabilia bill was passed not in an attempt to void historical relevance; but rather to stop the "cottage" industry of murderer's profiting off their notoriety. The gun that belonged to Clyde Barrow may have historical relevance. Charles Manson's toenail and fingernail clippings do not.Neither did Berkowitz's or Gacy's paintings.
It was specifically targeted to prevent convict's from profiting from their crimes after conviction.
Semperfine, doesn't the media also traffic in a "cottage industry" profiting off murderers' notoriety? How is what Nancy Grace does in that respect any different from the murderabilia peddlers?
Grits:
Nancy Grace, regardless of anyone's opinion, is not a convicted criminal, especially not a notorious murderer such as Manson or Berkowitz. While some may say that it is reprehensible that she gets an astronomical paycheck for blatant sensationalism, her money is not going into the trust fund of some unrepentant animal who would not have any significance, Darwinian or otherwise, except for the fact that they committed horrendous crimes.
Semperfine, the murderers aren't the ones setting up internet auction sites, that's done by outside vendors for one reason: Demand ginned up by the media. The MSM profiteering off misery is what enables the subsidiary market for murderabilia, which wouldn't exist without it.
Also, fwiw, collectors decide what does and doesn't have historical relevance, not politicians, and their choices are mainly a function of media decisions about what's newsworthy. The media hype around Bonnie and Clyde is little different from that surrounding Charles Manson, and to the extent either are historically significant, it has mostly to do with the MSM's choices based on what sells papers, draws viewers, etc.. IMO it's hypocritical for the media to demagogue (as they frequently do) about "murderabilia" when they're the worst offenders of all profiteering off of the actions of killers and creeps.
Post a Comment