The pattern takes hold

By Mustang Bobby

The pattern is sadly the same. A horrible incident occurs with people being killed by a single person. The media coverage saturates everything, spreading out like rising flood waters. In the initial minutes and hours no one really knows any answers so they grab the slightest bit of speculation and put it on the air to fill the space between the re-running of the initial reports and endless video loops of flashing lights at the scene to cautious -- and often wrong -- rumors, including false reports of deaths of the victims.

As the situation begins to solidify and the facts become known, the hastily-called press conferences begin with updates from the hospital and the police and new names are added to the American lexicon. The cable news networks have come up with a concise title for the incident and even put up somber music and graphics to go with it. Special broadcasts are scheduled for later that evening, giving the producers time to call in their analysts so the first round of speculation, navel-gazing, and finger-pointing can begin.

Meanwhile, the news media is trying hard to fill the time, so they are interviewing everybody, even themselves. If the suspect has been caught, the police are leaking information about the person, apparently in the hopes of shaking something loose, such as background or motive; the public can always be counted on to come forward and tell what they know if it gets them on TV. The friends and neighbors invariably report that the suspect was a kind of quiet person, always kept to themselves, never gave much of a hint of trouble, but they always knew there was something a little "off" about him. Thanks to the social networks, the suspect will have posted subtle warning signs about his plans; it is hard to resist the need to let the world know, however cryptically, that they were planning this for some time. And the sketchy and incoherent image of a tortured soul comes forward. But for now, he is as quiet as the dead; it won't be until a trial that we hear anything from him again... assuming he did not turn the gun on himself.

The political framing is already taking shape. Each side has pronounced their horror and outrage -- on that they are equally firm -- but already the posturing is being framed for the inevitable contest of soundbites that blame one side or the other, or, most maddeningly of all, both sides equally. The political parties will instantly search their databases to determine if there was any connection between themselves and the suspect, and the one that comes closest will immediately gulp and then issue a defiant statement condemning the action and, at the same time, disavow any connection, knowing full well their opponents are focusing on them. (Meanwhile the conspiracy theorists are seeing a vast connection between both sides and the CIA.) Within 24 hours all the resources have been mustered to air a special round-table broadcast of all the best pundits, including the fringe types just to keep in interesting, and the inevitable spokesperson for the gun lobby will confidently report that guns don't kill people; people kill people. With guns.

Everyone will scratch their chins, shake their jowls, nod their heads at the profound prepared off-the-cuff remarks, and then, after they have all decided what the incident portends for everyone involved -- the president, the political parties, and anyone that happens to be there, including the heroic people who got their moments in the spotlight -- the networks and the blogs, including this one, will return to the status quo, and the regularly scheduled programming already in progress will be rejoined.

Within a surprisingly short time, most of the details of the incident will be forgotten. By the time the seasons change, the names of the dead will have faded from our short-term memory; the only reminders will be the trial of the suspect, but that will be the fourth or fifth story on the news, just ahead of the update on a celebrity in rehab. And the only people who will remember this with the clarity and pain are the victims; the families of the dead and the survivors who, even if they recover from the physical trauma, will never be truly healed.

Worst of all, we will immediately seek to absolve ourselves of any culpability. One person did this; one "lone wolf," with serious mental problems, we're told, as if that is a way of comforting ourselves that we are not to blame. It wasn't anything we did; maybe it was the other guys, and when the other guys are confronted, they turn back and say, well, you had something to do with it. And then everyone agrees that if we all had something to do with it, then nothing can be done about it.

As I said, the pattern is always the same; Dallas 1963, Memphis and Los Angeles 1968, and, more recently, Oklahoma City, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, and on and on. It devolves to a single name to cue the recollection; this past weekend will be known as "Tucson." We follow the script because that's the way we process the information, and we try to put it behind us and move on because to dwell on it would not make it any better; the healing -- such as it is -- could not happen. But it rarely changes us. No profound shift will come to our national psyche; no deep assessment and re-evaluation of our social make-up will occur; it didn't after the murder of a president or the countless number of other rampages since then. It is both the blessing and the curse of our collective mind that we have the ability to move on; it is a sign of optimism, but it also means we give up much of a chance of learning anything. The pattern takes hold.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Bloodshed of Burma

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Via Brad Plumer: England's Daily Mail is reporting on the unofficial (if "official" is what the totalitarians are telling us) but likely accurate death toll in Burma, as well as on the nature of the brutality, the mass murder of the regime's opponents:

Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma's ruling junta has revealed.

The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: "Many more people have been killed in recent days than you've heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand."

*****

Reports from exiles along the frontier confirmed that hundreds of monks had simply "disappeared" as 20,000 troops swarmed around Rangoon yesterday to prevent further demonstrations by religious groups and civilians.

Word reaching dissidents hiding out on the border suggested that as well as executions, some 2,000 monks are being held in the notorious Insein Prison or in university rooms which have been turned into cells.

There were reports that many were savagely beaten at a sports ground on the outskirts of Rangoon, where they were heard crying for help.

Read the full article for more, which includes photos.

The media will soon lose interest in this story, moving on to whatever is next, largely because the sensationalism will subside and their consumers will grow tired of more of the same -- and because Burma is effectively a "closed" society. Whatever the attention is continues to receive, however, we must not let this story disappear. If there is little else that we can do -- we who do not have the levers of government at our disposal, we who are not diplomats, we who cannot impose sanctions, that is, we bloggers, we in the alternative media -- we can continue to seek out reports, and to report on those reports, and to comment on those reports, coming out of Burma or about the situation in Burma generally, as well as to comment on what our governments are doing, or not doing.

That's the least we can do.

**********

Elsewhere, The New Republic has an interesting article by Joshua Kurlantzick on "India's craven appeasement in Burma":

As protests spiral into chaos and bloodshed inside Burma, the country's giant neighbor China, looks on with concern, worrying about a total meltdown on their borders, which could spread instability across its frontiers. After saying nothing for weeks, its senior leadership calls on the Burmese junta to act wisely, yet does not condemn their brutal crackdown or support the Burmese pro-democracy movement.

But while the world has focused on how China abets the Burmese generals, in recent years the policies of India, the world's largest democracy, could be described in exactly the same way, and are just as craven. These days, senior Indian officials buy up Burma's resources, invite the junta leaders on state visits, and even sell the Burmese military arms. As Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee recently said, according to the BBC, "We have strategic and economic interests to protect in Burma. It is up to the Burmese people to struggle for democracy, it is their issue."

India was generally supportive of the pro-democracy protests of the late-'80s, but its interests seem to have shifted. It is now actively propping up, and profiting off, Burma's totalitarian regime -- that is, profiting off oppression and mass murder. China deserves much of the blame, too, but India is certainly one of the leading enablers of the very regime that has slaughtered so many thousands in response to peaceful pro-democracy protests.

The Burmese people are struggling for democracy, and dying for it. But how are they to succeed with regional powers like China and India working to keep them in chains?

**********

Update: There's more on the India-Burma relationship at Der Spiegel: "The ongoing political crisis in Burma is putting India in a difficult position. Delhi wants to cozy up to the junta to counter China's influence in the country. But the world's biggest democracy cannot be seen to support a crackdown on pro-democracy activists."

Update 2: For more on the plight of the monks, see The Independent: "Monks vanish as Burmese troops step up presence."