Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Rest in peace, Casey!

I just watched the news with Abi, and this shocking thing came on about a guy in Leeds who strangled a two-year-old girl called Casey Mullen to death. Allegedly he has sexually abused her before murdering her. They are still questioning the guy they arrested (apparently the fecking UNCLE of that girl), so it’s not conclusive as of yet, but all I have to say to whoever did this is:

You should have your cock taken off with a blunt saw! In public. While getting assraped by the Hell’s Angels. And then be left to die in the gutter.

You know, there are always debates about how to treat convicted pedophiles and murderers, especially child murderers, and there is always a tendency to protect the guilty. Some of the bastards get away with a few years, sometimes even a few months of imprisonment. They talk about rehabilitation and all that shit, and that there is no point in harsh punishment, and that a guy as sick as that probably doesn’t know what he was doing.

You know what? I don’t give a flying fuck about that. Seeing this adorable little girl, such an innocent, pure little thing, knowing what happened to her, how can you even for one minute consider the rights of the perpetrator? How low scum do you have to be to be capable of hurting someone as defenseless as little Casey? Anyone who commits an atrocity like that surely has forfeited every chance of defense or consideration?! I dunno what it is these days with people getting away with virtually everything (and to be fair, we don’t know yet what will happen to that guy, but call me prematurely cynical...). Maybe an extremely harsh punishment would be a good deterrent. Like if I chopped off the hands of thieves and nailed them over the door of my shop. You just wouldn’t risk it, if you have any common sense, and if not, well boohoo, learn to fuckin knit with your feet.

And if it’s not a deterrent, at least it’s a worthy punishment.

I am just sickened and sad.

And there was another thing that came to mind when the news were on, and they showed the results of some bombing where a ton of people got blasted away.

Does objectivity create lethargy?

While the news were on, I suddenly woke up to the way the anchormen spoke.

“At least 100 (or somethingorother) were killed”, he said with an indifferent-semi-jolly intonation.

This and seeing the baby on the news, it sometimes makes me wonder, is this so called objectivity in journalism actually a good thing? I know I have done the whole media study thing, where you discuss the advantages of journalistic objectivity (even though you have to admit that it really is a farce), and a lot of things speak for it. But the longer I think about it, the more I wonder whether we didn’t chuck the baby out with the bathwater.

See, I don’t mean one should be emotional to the point of riling up the masses, creating riots and so forth. That’s just polemics and propaganda. But the fear of drifting into that has pushed journalism to the other end of the scale: complete detachment. And that’s fucking wrong!

If you report about something in a way that sounds like it’s not even worth listening to, like it doesn’t make a difference, then doesn’t that ultimately result in the general mass of people only listening with half an ear? How can you expect the whole country to be involved with world issues if a) they are loaded with their own problems and b) not even your voice or reaction to an issue as a reporter gives them an incentive to care.

We are not rational, objective beings. We’re emotional beings. We have emotions for a reason.

Yes, we have reason, too, but there is a place for everything. There must be a healthy balance.

Some things should distress us, and we should express it. There is something wrong with us if it doesn’t.

No comments: