Columbine = Pack o Lies?

DNK

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
3,562
Location
Saigon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/17/columbine-massacre-gun-crime-us
Those of us who covered the shootings repeated at least some of these stories. We had no reason not to. They were confirmed, if not amplified, by the Jefferson County officials who gave news briefings several times a day. How were we to know that John Stone, the county sheriff, was winging it, telling us, for example, that the boys had fully automatic weapons and at least one accomplice, when these were no more than his own wrongheaded assumptions?

Much of what we reported, though, was simply wrong, as attested by tens of thousands of official documents and other evidence that has at last seen the light of day after years of suppression by the local authorities. As the Colorado-based journalist Dave Cullen tells in his gripping and authoritative new book Columbine, Harris and Klebold had plenty of friends, did pretty well in school, were not members of the Trenchcoat Mafia, did not listen to Manson, were not bullied, harboured no specific grudges against any one group, and did not "snap" because of some last-straw traumatic event. All those stories were the product of hysteria, ignorance and flailing guesswork in the first few hours and days.

It was Valeen Schnurr, who was asked, by Klebold, if she believed in God, and answered yes. She was then spared.


Likewise, if they hated jocks, they didn't make any special effort to target them. At one point they joked about killing anyone in a white hat; one boy cowering beneath a desk quickly pulled a white cap off his head, and lived.

But the fact that the attack took place on Hitler's birthday was a coincidence. The boys had decided on 19 April - the anniversary of the botched government siege at Waco, Texas, in which 76 people perished by fire in 1993, and also the anniversary of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. As it was, the plan was pushed back 24 hours because the local drug dealer who had promised to provide the boys with their ammunition did not come through on time.

The influence of the media on real-life acts of violence is hotly debated and far from proven, but here is one statistic. Just about every recorded instance of mass murder given saturation coverage on US television is followed by another mass murder, somewhere around the country, within two weeks.
24/7 news coverage can be so accurate sometimes it's scary...

And it took how many years for all this to come out?
 
quite a lot of sources cited here (or in the original article). oh, wait...
 
I am sorry but I have to provide a source for every teensy bit I picked from somewhere when talking about gender roles in The Merchant of Venice or the use of overt/covert prestige in Dancehall and Reggae media as it pertains to Jamaican Creole and speaky-spoky. This is not important stuff but merely something to put into research papers so it can be checked up on. If I were to discover a story as the OP reports it I would damn well make sure that everybody who would cast doubts about it knew where to look to make up their own minds. conventional media presentation be damned.
 
I am sorry but I have to provide a source for every teensy bit I picked from somewhere when talking about gender roles in The Merchant of Venice or the use of overt/covert prestige in Dancehall and Reggae media as it pertains to Jamaican Creole and speaky-spoky. This is not important stuff but merely something to put into research papers so it can be checked up on. If I were to discover a story as the OP reports it I would damn well make sure that everybody who would cast doubts about it knew where to look to make up their own minds. conventional media presentation be damned.
This isn't a friggin' research paper, it's an article from The Guardian about a book. Do you really expect to see footnotes in your morning newspaper? Do you really expect people to read that?
 
Most of these details are part of public record.

Yep. As with any live news story, most of what you initially hear is simply speculation passed along as though it was the holy grail of news. Oklahoma City immediately comes to mind and so does 9/11. Nobody even suspected the Branch Davidians until someone noticed much later that it was the first anniversary of their massacre (or self-immolation depending on which side you believe...). Initially, most of the talking heads thought the Muslims were attacking Oklahoma of all places.

Here's some choice irony:

This article was amended on Friday 17 April 2009 to remove a reference to a supposed chatroom warning issued in advance by the teenager who killed 15 people at a high school in Winnenden, Germany, in March this year. The chatroom warning was exposed as a hoax.
 
This isn't a friggin' research paper, it's an article from The Guardian about a book. Do you really expect to see footnotes in your morning newspaper? Do you really expect people to read that?

I don't expect people to read the footnotes or check up on them, that is besides the point anyways. this is for those who want to check up on the story. with a story such as this I'd expect a referal as to which of the tens of thousands of documents provide the information cited and what the original phrasing was as well as additional information they might have picked up and used.

otherwise this is merely news entertainment. with the features websites can offer you get zip, nada, zero with the article? the sources do not even have to be in the morning paper if that is your major issue. ink is expensive after all...

edit: oh wait, foot in mouth... it is an article about a book. in that case I retract my objections and hope to find the sources laid out in the book. entirely my bad. did miss that in my read-through... whoopsie?
 
I don't expect people to read the footnotes or check up on them, that is besides the point anyways. this is for those who want to check up on the story. with a story such as this I'd expect a referal as to which of the tens of thousands of documents provide the information cited and what the original phrasing was as well as additional information they might have picked up and used.
One assumes that that information would be in the book that the article is about. :p
 
One assumes that that information would be in the book that the article is about. :p

ayup. hence my appologies and the "whoopsie" moment. edited above your post... mea culpa.
 
Most of this was already on wikipedia, but nice to see it in a news source.
 
I came home from nightshift, and woke up to watch Columbine, live and breaking on CNN. I still remember the bloody, crippled kid low vaulting through the open window. I doubt it was faked.
 
I came home from nightshift, and woke up to watch Columbine, live and breaking on CNN. I still remember the bloody, crippled kid low vaulting through the open window. I doubt it was faked.

So who didn't read the OP? Raise your hands.

The article gives no such insinuation. In fact, it is about precisely what you just did: speaking and assuming off the top of your head.
 
So who didn't read the OP? Raise your hands.

The article gives no such insinuation. In fact, it is about precisely what you just did: speaking and assuming off the top of your head.

You caught me Commizar Cheezy. In my defense, quite a lot of revisionist dreck is posted in OT.
 
You caught me Commizar Cheezy. In my defense, quite a lot of revisionist dreck is posted in OT.

Off to the Gulag wit yez. :devil:

I have a question: I've never bothered to see Bowling for Columbine as I find Michael Moore to be a loud-mouthed demagogic buffoon; is any of this information or such in that film, or is it about something entirely different?
 
Top Bottom