Why the Media Suddenly Lost Interest in the Latest School Shooting

Why the Media Suddenly Lost Interest in the Latest School Shooting, by Brian Joondeph. The Colorado shooting, a week ago. It’s already lost in the rear vision mirror, but why?

After the shooting, other than some virtue signaling by the media, the story has left the front pages, as the narrative may be inconvenient for the leftist agenda. CNN and MSNBC have lived up to their reputation as “drive-by media” by quickly moving on. No interviews with David Hogg or other gun control fanatics. So, what are some of the inconvenient aspects to this story that the media would prefer to drive by without any discussion or analysis?

Weapon:

Let’s start with the weapons. The two shooters, “opened fire with handguns that were concealed in a guitar case”, as reported by the Daily Mail in an unexpected good faith effort at honest journalism. Handguns? What happened to those evil AR-15’s or “assault weapons” that Democrats and the media constantly warn about? …

The reality is that most gun crimes are committed with handguns not rifles. But this doesn’t fit the media narrative and it’s better to drive-by the story rather than explain this inconvenient truth.

What to do during a shooting:

Next are the bystanders. Remember the admonition, “When seconds count, help is minutes away”? This played out in the Colorado shooting. You can “hide under your desk,” as one option suggested by the New York Times.

In Colorado, a student who was also an aspiring Marine, took a different approach. He “jumped into action,” throwing himself on the shooter, and sadly died for his sacrifice.

He was joined by another brave student who “rushed to help his two classmates subdue the shooter.” The point is that these heroic students immediately went on offense, rather than passively hiding, perhaps unnerving the shooter and preventing this from becoming a mass casualty event.

Political exploitation of survivors:

Then there was the school vigil in Colorado, a time for holding candles and chanting about “common sense gun control measures.” Attending were local Democrat politicians, including Senator Michael Bennet, one of dozens running for president. Rather than a receptive audience, the vigil organizer, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, instead saw, “A walkout by students opposing what they viewed as politicization of the tragedy.”

This was not the narrative that the media wanted to report on. They would prefer David Hogg ranting and raving, blaming Trump, the NRA, and toxic white masculinity for the shooting. How inconvenient that the affected students chanted “mental health” and didn’t join in the predictable politicization of a tragedy by the left.

Shooter’s politics:

One of the two shooters didn’t fit this mold. He was anti-Christian, critical of President Trump, a registered Democrat, and supportive of left-wing Occupy Democrats. In other words, his views were perfectly aligned with the Democrat Party base, a perspective big media would prefer to avoid discussing.

Marijuana?

Colorado is also famous for legal marijuana; the first state to legalize a potential mind-altering substance. … Ignored is the link between marijuana and many mass killers. Will the media be curious about whether the two Colorado shooters had marijuana in their systems? Probably not as it is against the preferred narrative. …

Transgender:

Lastly one of the Colorado shooters was transgender, a female transitioning into a male. I’m sure there is a specific gender identity term for such a person, but I am not woke enough to know what that term is. Suffice it to say, a female becoming a male will be taking testosterone. There is scientific evidence of an association between higher testosterone levels and aggressive or violent behavior.

In the mainstream media, transgenders are the highest form of human evolution. It would be most inconvenient to raise even the possibility of an association between gender transitioning and the recent school shooting, so don’t expect Meet the Press or Face the Nation to discuss any of this.

Caught again! The media emphasizes some stories, repeating them over and over, while others are quietly dropped if they don’t help their narrative. It’s not lying exactly … but it is.

How the media decides whether to mention something: Does it help the left politically?