The Media and the Massacre
Essdras M Suarez/The Boston Globe/Getty ImagesThe Media and the Massacre
The voices followed me through the airport yesterday afternoon, their insistent tones blaring as loudly as the glaring screens that have colonized nearly every public place in American life. They chased after me offering insider knowledge: "The autopsy reports on Adam Lanza and his mother are providing some gruesome new details … "
I scurried out of sight and hearing of whatever gruesomeness was about to be unveiled. They quoted press releases from lobbying groups: "… prepared to make meaningful contributions to make sure this never happens again.…" I pondered how many PR professionals had polished that artfully vague phrase—"meaningful contributions"—and whether they truly believed that such a travesty would never happen again, no matter how meaningful their client's contributions.
No, it will happen again.
I did not actually curse in the televisions' direction until I heard them serve up the most heinous possible version of disaster theology—this, offered in all strident sincerity to best explain the fates of the victims to one's own children: "God needed some wonderful new angels. He asked for them, and he got them."
Not a single person in that airport was assisted in any way by these ghastly disclosures, pat press releases, and offensive atheologies. But this is the ironclad logic of continuous broadcasting: Broadcasting must be continuous. Someone must always be saying something even when there is nothing new to say. The most basic lesson for those who would comfort the victims of tragedy is that the first, best response to tragedy is presence, and often the best form of presence is silence. The grieving, the sick, and the dying sometimes need our words, sometimes need our touch, but almost always they need our presence. And there is no contradiction between presence and silence in the embodied life for which we were all created, to which we are all called, into which God himself entered. Bodies can be present without a word. That is the beauty of bodies.
Mediated communication, on the other hand—any form of communication that places something "in the middle," between persons—cannot abide silence. Radio hates dead air. Television hates sound without movement. As Garrison Keillor discovered when his perfect radio show became a mediocre television show, the camera cannot sit still. An audience of a thousand can sit utterly quiet as a single person plays an acoustic guitar, Keillor said ruefully, but the camera cannot—it must swoop and pan and zoom. Media cannot rest.
And while there was a time when you could count the number of broadcasters on one hand, we are all broadcasters now. A tragedy like the Newtown massacre becomes not just a media event, but also a social media event. As the journalist Alex Massie pointed out in his trenchant essay this week, silence is not an option in social media. Not to tweet or post or blog is not to be silently present—it is to be mutely absent. He suggested, fully aware of the futility of his suggestion, that perhaps we all could have simply posted one-word tweets on Friday, using the hashtag #silent, and left it at that. But we didn't, nor are we likely to during the next tragedy. #silent will never be a trending topic on Twitter.
All that any of us who do not live in Newtown, Connecticut, truly needed to know—possibly more than we needed to know—appeared in a 12-word news alert on my phone Friday afternoon. Almost everything else, I believe, was a distraction from the only thing that we who are not first responders, pastors, or parents in that community needed to do at that moment: to pray, which is to say, to put ourselves at the mercy of God and hold those who harmed and those who were harmed before the mercy of God.
Instead, we tweeted, we compulsively reloaded the live feed on The New York Times, we opened multiple browser windows, we turned on NPR. (At least that is what I did for a while that grim afternoon, in spite of myself.) All this accomplished, for the great majority of us, was to substitute information for contemplation, the illusion of engagement for prayer. I did not really need to know more about what happened behind those 12 awful words in order to pray. I needed to contemplate just those words, just those most brutal facts.
The quest for more talk, more images, more footage (none of which would ever satisfy our lust for understanding, no matter how graphic police and producers allowed them to become) is rarely about the quest to more deeply contemplate the brokenness of the world—it is the quest to not contemplate it. Because if we were simply to contemplate those 12 words, we would be brought all too soon to the terrifying precipice of our own inadequacy, our own vulnerability and dependence, and even (so the saints testify) our own culpability, our nearness in spirit to even the most deranged and destructive.
Mind you, silence is not the only kind of presence Christians have to offer a world gone wrong and gone mad. We also bear witness to the presence of the Word made flesh, the Word who entered into this story, who did not send a message but became a baby. And that Word does indeed prompt our words—words not of endless rehearsal of "details" or promises we cannot keep, but words of truth, hope, and life. This is the only way I know how to participate in our mediated, self-medicated world of too much information and too little contemplation: to keep silent until we have something true to say.
Terrible things happen every day. One day, one will probably happen to you, if it has not already happened. Surely it is our suppressed awareness that tragedy is coming our way, too, our unwillingness to be silent and contemplate our own need for mercy, that turns compassion into compulsion, turns our God-breathed impulse to stop for the wounded traveler into the gawking slowdown on the other side of the highway.
So for those of us who are spared their direct blows, this terrible thing, and the next terrible thing to come, are opportunities to learn what it will be almost too late to learn when death is at our own door. How to be silent, how to be truly present, and then how to speak. How to hear what the true mediators always say when they bring real news to a broken world: "Be not afraid."
Andy Crouch is executive editor of Christianity Today.

The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life

Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness












Join the Conversation
Displaying 15 of 14 comments
See all comments
Paul Schryba
I find many points in the article I strongly agree with. The first is the focus; the article is not about trying to force the media to change, nor keeping the focus on the media and its wrongs. He challenges us to take responsibility for our actions. He mentions our modern tendency to be addicted mental chatter and our failure to be still, silent- and then to respond in the Spirit from that silence. "How to be silent, how to be truly present, and then how to speak."
Claire Guest
I agree with Rick Dalbey's post below. Laura, I understand your point. It does seem that people have a desperate need to understand the WHY of this tragedy (we've heard this question constantly, from all quarters). The ONLY thing that explains the WHY of ANY tragedy to me is the Word of God, period. I realize that if people don't know the Lord, they don't have access to His POV. In this particular situation, it seems the only people who could have told us anything concrete about Adam Lanza's mindset have died, or else aren't talking (like his dad and brother). It bothers me that a LOT of speculation has been reported (and accepted) as fact. Another major concern for me is the politicizing of this tragedy - one example of this is the listing of TWENTY-SIX victims, not TWENTY-SEVEN. I've seen/heard a lot of this in the MSM media. RE: this article's title - IMHO, True compassion requires intercession.
LAURA C STEEL
The comments here show what the real problem with the TV coverage is: we think if we watch, we will "understand". No amount of commentary is going to "make sense" of the story for us. No amount of expert analysis is going to prevent further tragedies. As for "needing to know" the families, the same applies: no amount of tv coverage is going to give me a relationship with them. It merely exploits already suffering people and makes me feel virtuous without cause. I do not watch TV coverage of these "big" stories because they are usually (especially in the beginning) inaccurate and repetitive. The Newtown tragedy is not a TV movie or a reality show, and I will not watch it as if it was.
Bill Both
The author has a point BUT we have to get to know the victims and their families. Otherwise these are just numbers devoid of meaning. I didn't watch ALL of Anderson Cooper's coverage but he did a wonderful interview of Chris and Grace McDonnell about their daughter Grace. It is truly worth a watch: http://youtu.be/ToQNVJE4xgk
Rick Dalbey
I agree with Rob the newscaster. Non-stop news coverage only happens when the soul of a nation is touched, when we are faced with implacable evil like 9/11, Newtown or Columbine. It is a desperate attempt to understand the motivations of evil. It is uncomfortable because it re-states God's opinion of fallen man and in that respect moves us all towards needing a savior. It also moves us all towards prayer and comforting one another. These children deserved several days of non-stop coverage, presidential comment, analysis by ministers, psychologists, law enforcement officers and pundits and televised prayer services. The nation needs to share in this kind of grief. If it wearies you turn it off. Simple.