CELEBRITY GUEST COMMENT: E. Power Biggs Takes on All Media — by Steve Nadis
AND SNAKE (aka “Snark”) REPLIES: Thanks for your comment, Biggs. Or must I call you Mr. Biggs? I’m glad you feel free to speak up on any topic, regardless of what I write about. Please feel free to fire away any time you’re so inclined. Under the circumstances, I suppose, I should say, “speak away,” rather than “fire away.” Now as to your point: Holding me accountable for all of journalism is quite an honor, in a sense, given that I’m actually a very marginal player (a “bit player,” you might say) in that hallowed field. (Writing about flying squirrels and the inner game of volleyball tends to do that to you.) No one would listen to me, even if I got up on a stump and made a fuss. Even if I was naked at the time. But, getting back to your point. If I’m reading it correctly, yes, you are right–there is a double-standard here. And it also illustrates how vague the term “terrorism” really is. If the gunman yelled “Allah is great!” before firing the shots, would that have made him a terrorist? (Probably so, in many quarters.) If he yelled, “Christ died for your sins!” before pulling the trigger, would that have made him a terrorist? (Probably not, in these parts; more likely he’d be called a “disturbed” or “deranged individual, perhaps with a misplaced Christ-identification complex.) I considered writing about the incident myself–about how what used to be a uniquely American form of violence, going “postal” in the schoolyard, has, unfortunately, caught on internationally–but I had the good sense to refrain. Until now.
Actually, Snake, I think that would make a very good article, or editorial. And I like your thoughts on what it takes to turn a violent person to be labeled a terrorist.
I’m not sure what Mr. Biggs is upset about. I agree that the people injured wouldn’t be comforted by the fact that this wasn’t a “terrorist” action, per se. But I’m not sure why Mr. Biggs should be upset? I mean, with all the true politically motivated terrorist action taking place around the world, maybe it is necessary to make sure the public understands when a particular act is not a result of political terrorism–to keep the level of anxiety down, if nothing else. But I didn’t read the article, so maybe I missed a vital point.
Thanks Gatemouth for your thoughtful note. I agree with Biggs in a sense that if you’re killed by a mad guman, it doesn’t really whether the deaths were the result of political terrorism or random, apolitical act of terror. However, you make a good point as well–that for the public, at large, it is reassuring to know that is was just one nutjob, rather than one of millions of crazed anti-American (I suppose that goes for Canada now, as well) extremists who desperately want to kill us. And also thanks for the encouragement–maybe I will write that article or editorial one day.
Yes, I believe that Snake is more to the point, though I’m continually distracted by the image of him on a stump in a fuss minus clothes…
I believe that what Mr. Biggs was alluding too was more about the diction of the report. The way the media spins it makes things seem that since this attack wasn’t a terrorist plot, it is somehow better for the rest of our peace of mind. The issue that Mr. Biggs is taking (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that as a nation, we are involved in a War on Terror, which can be better summed up by, at war with fear. By the media labelling violence as “terrorist” or “non-terrorist” in a heirarchal manner simply adds to our fear… (“oh my god, there are more than one type of violence to worry about? Please explain to me my opinions and options, oh all knowing media…”) The disgust comes from the fact that it is in large part the media who keeps this ‘fear’ constant in our lives, and thus keeps its’ viewers/readers tuning in and turning pages. If they would have reported this act of ‘going postal’ as purely that, we would have remarked, be saddened, and moved on. But to be reminded that it could have been a terrorist (which is LARGELY a mute detail when it in fact wasn’t), or better put, an organized attack, is to keep the public in a constant state of what-if; i.e. fear.
The media should not be allowed to comment on what ‘might’ have been. Here’s an example; FLASH: A fire broke out in a midwestern suburb today. The fire was found out to have been started by teenagers smoking in an abandoned building… and not Dragons. (geesum Martha, did you hear? Dragons in the media again?)
… I agree with Mr. Biggs. Irresponsible rubish.
They have terrorists in Canada?
Well, they call them “Celine Dionne” and “Kenny Loggins.” But musical terrorism is still terrorism…
Don’t forget “Avril Lavigne”. Pop Punk IS a crime against civilized cultures.
I gotta hand it to Biggs; he must have touched a nerve somewhere. Canada may not breed too many terrorists (of the non-musical variety) but we do know that is a favored route of entry for those types. GS makes some reasonable points which can help us all understand why Mr. B. got so worked up. Of course, I could always ask him.
Wow, CMS has taken a turn for the serious. Who’s responsible for that?
Question for Gatemouth: Can you define “political terrorism?” Would a “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign qualify?
Good question, EPB. If the intent was to induce shock & awe & terror, as it unquestionably was, then I think we may have the answer.
P.S. I prefer to be called MISTER Biggs.