"College Massacre" flashed across the flat screen in the gym locker room last night. A few people gathered around, shaking their heads. The reporters seemed--and probably were--genuinely concerned about the students at Virginia Tech and their families. But, I couldn't help but think about how CNN went overboard sensationalizing a very sad story. I don't think it's a tribute to those slain to have "College Massacre" splashed across CNN for the next 2 weeks. Worse yet, I get disgusted when I think about the accountants and media buyers, who were surely wringing their hands in excitement about the unexpected cash flow. No need to trump up a minor news story to bring in the eyeballs: massacre is big stuff.
But what does "big" mean? For better or for worse, I don't pay much attention to national news. When a friend IMed me and asked, "Did you hear about Virginia Tech?" I zipped over to Yahoo News and found an article. Students, shooting, a bunch of people dead. I thought about my college experience and how horrible it would have been to have had a similar experience. And then I moved on. The story, though sad, wasn't important to me.
Some might think that it is heartless to ignore such a horrible event, but I see it as a matter of focus. Does "big" mean that everyone is paying attention to it? Importance shouldn't be a popularity contest. Does "big" mean "anomalous"? There are plenty of unique things going on in my neighborhood. Does "big" mean "tragic"? People's lives have tragedy every day, with 99% of it unsung. Does "big" even mean "lots of death"? Look at all of the Iraqis killed daily and imagine all of the stories about massacre that we don't hear about. I'm not saying that popularity, anomaly, tragedy, or death are anything to laugh at: I'm simply arguing that there's no need to assume that a story has universal importance. There are many stories, sung and unsung, that make up the daily fabric of news. National networks do not exist because of national news; rather, national news exists because that is how national networks survive. They must produce stories that appeal to many because they exist on economies of scale. Now that quality news can be produced by local news casters, bloggers, and common people, hopefully those days will end and, with it, sensationalist broadcasting.
I may be misreading the Zeitgeist. I'm arguing an ironic position that, as the world becomes more larger and more connected, stories and memes are best transferred by smaller communication, optimized to the needs of a focused group. Maybe I'm just projecting my own wish to be done with nationally hyped stories and concentrate more on what's going on locally. In any case, I won't be following this story.
While browsing through Wikipedia last week, I noticed a picture in the Libertarianism article that looked really familiar. I went and checked my Flickr account and yes, indeed, it was my photograph! Unfortunately, it's now been edited out, but at least I had my moment of fame. 
