SWA 5

The Virginia Tech shooting will forever be remembered as one of the most tragic moments in American history. Years from now it will still be analyzed in many different ways. What inspired the shooter? What could have been done to stop him? What changes do we implement across college campuses to prevent a future incident? No matter how many ways we scrutinize the event, the one conclusion we can always come to is that the shooter was more then just that; he was a killer. In his article Virginia Tech and Our Impoverished Language for Evil, author Gregg Easterbrook addresses our countries problem of not labeling things for what they really are, even if it means being bluntly honest about it.
Easterbrook wrote this article for audiences across the country. There is not one specific targeted group. Though he primarily calls out media outlets for not calling murderer Cho Seung-Hui what he really is, he subliminally lectures all Americans about not “calling a thing what it really is.” Easterbrook goes into great detail describing the mass horror of the act of murder, and how Americans should not beat around the bush when talking about it. To use the term “shooter” or “gunman” overlooks the true character of Cho. He was a murderer and a killer, and those should be the words used when reflecting on the event. From this article we learn about Easterbrook’s frustration over people mislabeling others in a kinder light. He cites examples such as “shooting spree” instead of “rampage,” and “troubled mental state” in the place of “madman.” He strongly believes that until we can address incidents like the Virginia Tech shooting for what they are, we cannot gain a better understanding of it or be able to prevent them in the future.
Readers will probably have a constrained viewpoint while reading this article. Many are still very bewildered by the whole incident, maybe still in disbelief that something like this could really happen. After reading the article, they could emotionally become fired up and side with Easterbrook in calling Cho a murderer, and his act of evil. I personally knew many people on the campus that day, so after reading Easterbrook’s justifications for revising what we call Cho, I full heartedly agreed and became flat out angry about how the media treated the tragedy.
The article, clearly sparked by the media’s tenderness in not speaking up about what Cho was, addresses that very problem. I find myself in agreement in much of what Easterbrook says in the article. I believe we share a good deal of common ground, and after he pointed out what so many of us were overlooking, I hope the next time a media outlet reports on a similar tragedy they will treat it for what it really is; an act of evil. Easterbrook made multiple valid points in defending his argument, and definitely persuaded at least one reader to see the same thing he sees.