As I waited in line for my biscuit, I overhead the reporters on Good Morning America say, ''His skin was pale as the drug was administered, and his lips trembled and his eyes became glassy . . .'' These reporters were giving the latest ''news'' on Timothy McVeigh's execution Monday morning. Is this necessary? It angers me to hear and read this kind of journalism that is every day getting more and more prevalent. Why do you think people choose to bomb a crowded building or shoot up a school? Because they are sure the media will give them all the attention that they seek. Even after McVeigh is dead, the media continue to give him the attention he wanted by giving the country the intimate details of his final minutes.
A death is a death. When people crave the details of death, be it a federally mandated execution or mass murder, we become that much closer to the criminal. People argue every day that we are living in a more violent world. Is it because this is what we are being sold? It seems that this is what the media and the people who crave these kind of stories want. If it bleeds, it leads.
When I was learning to be a journalist during my undergraduate years, we were always made to remember the days of journalism past, when sensationalism ruled over important news. I think we need not look so far, because we live in a world where the media make criminals into celebrities, and the audience loves it.
Dana Siegmund
Royston
This article published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, June 17, 2001.
