Perhaps the only time I watched the news was over break at home, where the news became background noise to dinner. The last week of vacation, however, the news took the center stage as the “Tragedy in Tucson” was broadcasted nationwide. Every night, news anchors would relay updated information from Tucson, Ariz., where Jared Lee Loughner attempted to assassinate Arizona Representative, Gabrielle Giffords, on January 8th, 2011.

Though Giffords is recovering from a bullet to the head, Loughner killed six others, including District of Arizona Chief Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl, Christina-Taylor Green, and injured thirteen. Heartbreaking news from Arizona, including a candlelight vigil and reports of Giffords’ improving health, were displayed through millions of televisions.

I find the problem, however, in the “diagnosing” of Loughner. Clearly, if a man leaves his house with a gun and attempts to kill people, he is mentally ill, but the media’s tendency to provide answers, in my opinion, is going overboard. Without even trying to, I can imagine Loughner’s face. The bald head, wide eyes, and broad smile have been shown every night, and the image has been permanently scarred in my head, as I am sure it has with other viewers.

By providing his pictures, the media is grasping to find a reason as to why someone could commit such a heinous crime. Some step out and confess that they knew Loughner had a problem, and cops remember pulling him over for running a red light the day of the shooting. Others ask a better question: why was it so easy for a man, who is considered mentally unstable, to legally buy a gun? His background check was clear even though he was suspended from his college and rejected from the military. Many wonder why gun laws in Arizona are the most lenient in the country, even after the Virginia Tech shootings.

Though many stories have focused on the lack of gun control, others focus on entirely different issues. One news channel interviewed six-year-olds from a local school, asking them how they felt about Green’s death. The children responded with short answers, saying that they were sad and she should not have died. Is this interview borderline sensationalizing the tragedy? What can young children provide except for a deeper emotional tug on the hearts of viewers on the death of an innocent little girl? This, however, raises even bigger questions.

Are news channels simply competing for more views by desperately finding new insight on Loughner’s motives? I understand that Loughner is a murderer and that innocent lives were lost for reasons we may never understand, but I am worried that news stories may turn into television dramas just to keep us entertained. Does this imply that we need dramatic interviews or the unnerving face of a killer shoved on our screens every night to keep our attention? Should we be blaming our own short term, ADD memories? Most people forget about the hundreds homeless in Pakistan from earthquakes or those who are losing everything from floods in Australia unless the disastrous images are shown repeatedly on the news.

Do images need to be constantly broadcasted because we do not care about others in the world? No, that can’t be it. We merely forget. In order to be reminded through our busy lives, images of Loughner’s smiling face are spread across TIME magazine. Psychologists try to analyze his behavior before the shooting to consistently remind us of the horrors of January 8th. According to the New York Times article, “Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin” published on January 15th, Loughner had problems with his father, used drugs through high school, believed in government conspiracy theories, and was obsessed about lucid dreaming. He believed he was being “scammed” in college and that women should not have powerful positions, which could be why he targeted Giffords.

 These analyses attempt to satisfy our natural curiosity about Loughner’s intentions and motives when he bought a Glock 19, but no psychologist, ex-girlfriend, or taxi driver can offer concrete answers as to why Jared Lee Loughner open fired at a meet-and-greet almost three weeks ago. The only person who can answer the questions is the accused himself, who decided to plead the fifth. Nevertheless, news reporters will continue to find evidence and people will step up, claiming that they found him to be a “Columbine candidate,” as stated by his tattoo artist.

As the reporters seek answers from Loughner’s parents, who have been keeping their silence and trying to shy away from the media, I wonder when the Loughner theories will cease. Whether he believed the entire event was just a dream he controlled or if he knowingly fired shots, I hope that we don’t need constant reminders of the “Tragedy in Tucson” in the form of disturbing pictures of Loughner or sensationalized interviews of children. Despite our personal frantic lives and short memories, I have faith in our ability to remember Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Tucson without the help of over-analyzed news reports or the local news channels providing us with, what could soon become, nightly entertainment. 

To contact The Ionian’s Ranisha Singh, e-mail her at [email protected].