Why?
The headline in the local paper in the southern German town of Winnenden yesterday morning asked the question for all of us.
Just one word: "Warum?" Why?
Why did a 17-year-old boy go on the rampage, killing as many people as he could, including students and staff at his old school? Why could no one stop him? Why did no one know what he was planning? Why did 15 people have to die? So many questions, but all variations on the same theme. Why?
There are already plenty of theories. He is reported to have written on a social networking website: "What do I like? Nothing. What do I hate? Nothing."
He is reported to have been obsessed with guns -- his own air guns, which fire pellets, and his father's extensive collection of real weapons, one of which he stole to go on his killing spree.
A classmate is reported to have said that hadn't passed his school-leaving exams, that he was no good at school and had become increasingly frustrated.
Last night, there were reports that he had been suffering from depression and had been receiving psychiatric treatment. One of his victims was apparently an employee at the clinic where he was being treated.
(Earlier reports claimed that he had written on a website: "I've had enough, I'm fed up with this horrid life ... People are laughing at me ... I am scared, I have weapons here, and I will go to my former school tomorrow and then I will really do a grilling." But now there are doubts over the authenticity of the message.)
Does any of this answer the question? I fear it doesn't. I also fear that we might never know, that although our natural instinct is always to search for answers, perhaps we need to be able to accept that sometimes there either is no answer, or there is no answer available.
For us journalists, this is a hard lesson to learn. We were taught when we were babes in arms that our duty is always to find the answers to five basic questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? If we fail to find the answers, we feel we have failed as journalists.
So our professional instinct is always to search for the answers. And in this era of instant news, 24-hour news channels, the internet and the rest of it, the onus on us is to find them within minutes of an event occurring.
Just as politicians hate saying "Sorry", or "I got it wrong", so journalists hate saying "I don't know." And a pundit who says "I don't know" doesn't get invited back.
Sometimes answers will emerge at a trial, or an inquest. Sometimes police, or an official inquiry, will piece together enough of the story to satisfy our need to know. But often it will be weeks, or even months, after the event before we can be sure of the facts.
Patience has never been much in evidence in newsrooms, and I suspect it's less in evidence now than ever before. But in my book, patience is still a virtue - and yes, that includes for news consumers as much as for news providers.
Of course, none of this means that we won't go on trying to find answers. That's what we're paid for. But sometimes we just won't find them instantly.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Robin,
Why do individuals do things that the rest of us find inexplicable? Do we not rely on journalists to responds to our question? Is "why" not one of the 5 'W's - admittedly the last one? You should be providing us with an answer!
Suicide, for that was the perpetrators aim is always so sad (seen from the standpoint of the living - it is we who write the history after all!)
Why do suicide bombers do what they do? Why do we, the living, always wring our hands and declare that we do not understand why? If we are being honest we do understand, but find the answer culturally, religiously and humanly impossible to accept.
It is also one of the sadnesses of journalists that they seem to believe that we, their readers, believe them when they give us answers - we do not, but journalists want to believe that we do and we want journalists to continue to believe that we do believe them!
This is a flaw in the psychological make up of journalists - it is their 'sin' of pride, hubris if you like. We enjoy watching you journalists 'suffering' paroxysms of disillusionment when you feel that you have failed to provide the answers.
Most journalists can sometimes manage the first three 'W's and often the fourth but mostly the fifth is only addressed in the way that you have above.
Here is an answer (assuming that you were actually looking for an answer!): - the German (and American) lad(s) could not cope with growing up, with life's failures and had access to weapons. Most of us learn quickly about handling failure and develop coping strategies but a few people do not - these boys did not.
Robin, don't chastise yourself - admit that being human is about living with failure, and in the end the ultimate inevitable failure - that none can avoid! Try reading more Kafka and Machiavelli - I'm sure that there will be a general election sooner than you think and that will take your mind off of all thing introspection.
Complain about this comment
Ludwig, you think you're so clever you can figure what went on in the head of a demented 17 year old? What do you think you are a psychiatrist? Your record and that of your employer as a whole at explaining how the world works and why has been dismal. Why not just stick to reporting the facts and then when you want to interject your own views, make it clear that that's all they are. Your British Government Ministry of Distortions and Lies doesn't seem to be able to separate its editorializing and reporting of the news. I don't know what responsibility a writer in general has to his audience but I do think a reporter has a responsibility to separate facts from opinions and make the distinction clear. BBC news continues to degenerate even beyond what I thought was possible.
Complain about this comment
#2. Glad to see that you have lowered your level of comment down to your usual level, Bilious Maximus! It must be really awful being you!
Robin is trying to do his job to the best of his ability and he does not deserve such uncivilized and unwarranted abuse. Over 30 innocent victims died at the hands of two young men, who were intent on suicide - perhaps that is of no consequence to you and to the people of your country, but it does matter to us, and to the people of Europe.
Complain about this comment
JFH
His job is to report the news, not explain why people do what they do. His opinions and judgements are no more informed than anyone elses. If there are facts reported by the police or people who knew the perpetrator well, then that is also news. He's no better an amateur psychiatrist or psychologist than he is an amateur economist or political analyst. He can express his opinions on his blog but he is not compelled to even have an opinion. As for being impatient for an explanation, that is usually the provence of those who want answers that are fast but rarely right.
You'd fit right in at the BBC news room. Your arrogance would go completely unnoticed.
Complain about this comment
Sparky: "His job is to report the news".
No, it isn't. That would be newsreader.
On this blog, and to some extent on Radio 4, Mr L's job goes a little bit further. It really isn't that hard to comprehend, most adults have no trouble telling the difference between the reporting of facts and discussion of events.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"It really isn't that hard to comprehend, most adults have no trouble telling the difference between the reporting of facts and discussion of events."
I'm glad to hear someone finally admit that the incessant interjection of opinion into the reporting of the news by BBC correspondents is deliberate and that even BBC reporters know the difference when they are doing it. Then the question is why. And the only explanation I can come up with is that their real purpose is propaganda to form the opinions of their audience, not to inform. BTW, I think not all members of BBC's audience around the world are nealy so sophisticated to easily see through BBC's ploy which is so transparent to you and me.
Complain about this comment
#6 Bilious Maximus your World view of News comes from a children's fantasy book.
What you call 'facts', Bilious, are the most difficult to be precise about. If you have ever been involved with any incident that becomes news and gets reported upon you would have noticed how your personal memory of the event differs from the 'facts' that are reported, let alone that get to court.
Robin's discussions of the 5 'W' of journalistic activity is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the journalist's role. The journalist selects the facts to fit into the 'w's - most of the time the difficult final 'w' (why) can only be covered very sparsely if at all.
The who can even be a problem. The what is most certainly a problem. The when is generally less problematic. The where in most stories can be found out. However the why is generally left out as 'too hard' (as in this story by Robin).
Then there is the filtering and censorship that takes place. The story may involve powerful litigious people and will have to be cleared by the lawyers. Then in all countries of the World there is the government censor. Just you try to get a story published in any country that exposes fraud or malfeasance in office withing a country's security services for example and every news organization is under pressure not to expose corruption within itself for example.
Your simplistic view of reporting 'the facts' is not even worthy of a children's fantasy.
Complain about this comment
Last night on the radio, BBC reported that there was an aborted attempt in Madagascar to overthrow the President. There wasn't one word of explanation beyond that. No idea what it was about, what it mean, no background whatsoever. You call that reporting? Yes you can look it up in the internet but that isn't the point. As informants of what is going on in the world, BBC often doesn't even rise to the level of mediocre.
Complain about this comment
Sparky, you can't have it both ways! You either get facts alone, or you get some background, or explanation, or discussion.
The BBC isn't perfect but in general it does a good job of keeping it's new headlines just that - headlines. When it moves on to discussing current events and placing them in context it seems to me to continue to do a good job of being unbiased, while making it painfully clear that what is being discussed isn't one of your beloved 'facts'.
In my experience it usually does a better job of maintaining this impartiality than many other news providers I've come across around the world (including the USA) because of the following:
1. The range of stories it actually reports on in the first place.
2. It's independence from commercial organisations (at least in its home 'market')
Just because you don't agree with it's journalists interpretation of the facts, it does not make them wrong. In reality, based on the quality of your past contributions the laws of probability probably mean they are right.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes;
"In my experience it usually does a better job of maintaining this impartiality than many other news providers I've come across around the world (including the USA) because of the following:"
They agree with your own personal biases and prejudices. That's the real truth of it. From my point of view, I can't use the kind of language necessary to describe ho I feel about it because the moderator would be forced to delete it. They don't just delete the expletives here, they delete the entire message.
Complain about this comment
Marcy, even you with your blinkered view must realise that, at best, your own argument applies equally to you as it does to me:
The BBC's reporting of events disagrees with your own personal biases and prejudices. That's why you don't like it.
Once again though, I'll ask you not to presume you know much about me, let alone what my own personal biases or prejudices might be.
You've got one thing going for you though, you continue to immerse yourself in the BBC every single day. I've not seen any evidence of your influence on them or other readers as yet. However, can you be sure that you yourself are not being influenced (educated/enlightened) by what you read?!
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, having had a lifetime of advertising propaganda thrown at me by Madison Avenue, I am sufficiently well practiced that I can almost invariably parse out the few nuggets of facts from the bulk of the crap that constitutes most of what BBC broadcasts and pretends is news. BBC doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of putting one over on someone from the Bronx. No one does.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, so your argument is that because you come from a particular suburb of New York, you're able to tell me with authority that my national broadcaster is biased.
Ignoring for a second that the BBC has fewer benefits from bias in it's reports than any commercial network, it's still plain to see that it is you that spouts nonsense (I'll not use the same description as you), not the BBC.
I won't bother to hinder you with my place of origin, suffice to say it's people are renowned for cutting through this offal efficiently.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, not merely biased but incompetent. Last night's broadcast about Madagascar hardly shed any more light on why there is a power struggle there than BBC's initial incomprehensible reports. This is not a matter of bias because most people are probably of the same mind about it I am, I couldn't care less what the outcome is. BBC either doesn't know what is behind the struggle or doesn't think giving its audience any context is important. That is frequently the case with its flawed theory of journalism.
"I won't bother to hinder you with my place of origin, suffice to say it's people are renowned for cutting through this offal efficiently."
Oh really? Then how do you explain why Europe is so dumb?
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I didn't hear that report, but it sounds exactly like what you were asking for - facts without context or opinion.
As for why Europe appears so dumb to you, well it's all about context - to the criminally stupid the enlightened will inevitably look dumb.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS