In the wake of the recent outcry in response to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, I have heard some people express the opinion that the media and public response has gone too far--that the attention the case has received has been too dramatic, not well-reported, sensationalist, etc. I would like to offer my thoughts on this subject.
Martin's death has two major inflammatory components. First, he was only 17 years old, and second, the circumstances surrounding his death are not clear. In fact, they are extremely suspicious. The more evidence that comes out in this particular investigation, the more questions are raised.
Taking this into consideration, I think nobody should be surprised that the public--and the media--has reacted the way it has. A minor has been killed, and it is questionable whether his killer's actions were justifiable in the name of self-defense. It's an extremely sensitive case, and certainly something for people to be upset over.
I will concede that tweeting Zimmerman's home address or posting a bounty for his capture is a violent, and therefore inappropriate, response. But I stand by my point that the death of any person under questionable circumstances, particularly that of a minor, merits an aggressive emotional reaction. I do not believe the public outcry is unwarranted in the slightest. People have a right to feel the way they feel. People have a right to grieve in whatever outspoken way they see fit.
I have also heard the argument made that the media has been irresponsible in the way it has presented the new developments in this case. Some people believe the media has presented the facts of this case in an excessively provocative light. I am also forced to disagree with this argument.
The media's job is to report news--that is, things that are new. While some may argue that it is irresponsible for the media to report developments in a case that is not yet clear, I would argue that it is precisely the media's job to report developments as soon as they occur. In a case as shady as this one has become, I would say it is the media's responsibility to inform the public of evidence as it is revealed, particularly evidence that causes people to reevaluate what they thought they knew about the case. It is the spirit of journalism to provoke discussion by presenting facts that other people have tried to bury.
Finally, I have also heard it argued that the discussions of race relations that have arisen as a result of this case are inappropriate and uncalled for. On this note, I can only say that as long as the events of Feb. 26 remain unclear and in need of investigation, it is not inappropriate for dialogue to continue about the motivations behind this case and others like it.
Trayvon Martin's death is still too shadowy for anyone to declare a public response inappropriate or dramatic, and the unexplained or poorly explained death of any individual is always cause for outcry. Rather than wishing this case would receive the minor attention that most events like it receive, we should be wishing that all cases received as much attention as this one.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
