I'm from Newtown, and I have something to say to the world:

[Springslips]

25. My disagreement is

That the media gets bashed at large, and not just one or two specific examples of them ie not respecting the victims. ( if we are talking about the actions or one or two reporters I may agree with you that their actions are over -the -line and deserve sanction.) I feel, though, that the over all attack of the media is kill the messenger, brought on by the universal (including emotions I experience) need to ignore reality, attack the means of psychic pain, scapegoating, and maintain a fantasy via "it's not real."

As for your "need not hear children tell me they were scared to know they were scared":I'm in no position to judge how you process information or how you experience reality second hand. ( I am highly empathic too and a simple fiction piece can make me understand horror of a situation.) But the vast majority of people process second hand accounts as if it wasn't real--a postmodern effect known as simulacrum. For instant, people can hear facts on the news like, "America dropped a bomb on Bagdad today and 100 innocent children died, " and most people would think nothing of it. But show them a video of effects: bloody bodies, missing arms, parents in the deep throws of anguish, and they will change their opinion of being in the world. Reality effects change; descriptions of reality are ignored as fiction, as just empty images, not real.

In modern life, too many live in a bubble, protect from any image that would disturb their world view, and thus problems remain with weak effort to address them.

My opinion is that it does children good to express their reality, what they went through, for them to have the feeling that they are helping others prevent more--the "I don't want my pain to go in vain." It makes it meaningful. The other way seems to be"just forget about it, don't bust people's protective bubble, just push the thoughts deep inside." I think it's more healthy to speak about it, even in a public venue, than too stay quiet. ( this is based on experience.)

The objection that letting children speak is a wrong because media profit from it thus exploitive is cognitively distorted. We get so set in suspecting profit motive ( which we always should be suspicious of) that we create a schema that say if someone gains profit someone else loses something. Common sense can tell you that this isn't necarrily the case; seldom does anyone think that maybe children may gain from it too. Point is that arguing someone is profiting from something does not necessitate that someone is being hurt. Another argument needs to be made regarding the mechanic of the situation more than profit motive.This of course assumes parental promission. Though I hear some on DU minimalize that for fear the parents are to anxious to make sound decisions--an argument I feel stems from control freakness.

All-in-all: there are probably ridiculous things going on with some members of the press, but for the most part their reporting is important, is needed, and the first step in problem solving. Sure, specific acts need criticized and sanctioned, but to slam it over all seems unhealthy, unproductive, unwise. In my humble opinion.