Why do the famous murderers have 3 names?Submitted by snakepit22 on Wed, 02/06/2013 - 12:52
Why do famous assassins always have three names; John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray. It is so common, they even give the killers three names in the movies now (Carl Lee Hailey).
It almost seems like a conspiracy until you consider the fact that, well……it’s not just the killers who have three names. Nearly everyone has three names. These killers are no different than you and me, except that the media isn’t reporting on us. If you or I had assassinated someone, they could easily choose to call us by two names or three. I suppose it just depends on what the media is trying to report, and that is where the real conspiracy lies. What is the media trying to report? You’d think they were just trying to report what happened. However if that were the case, why didn’t they report that Ray Anthony Lewis just won his second Super Bowl with the Baltimore Ravens, and why didn’t they report that Willard Mitt Romney is considering a run for Senate?
There are a couple of reasons for this phenomenon. Some are rather innocent, and some fairly diabolical. The first is very innocent almost to the point that you could say it is actually good journalism, and that is the fact that there are tons of people in this country who share the same first and last name. When you are reporting on the evil deeds of one person, it is simply polite not to be so vague as to allow them to be confused with several others. How many John Booths need to explain to their friends that they were not actually the guy to shoot Lincoln?
Another reason however, is that people with two names seem like…… people. Calling someone by just their first and last name makes them seem like just another person like you and me. Calling them by three names makes them seem like something else, something more important. Remember how you had two names when mom was happy with you, but three names when you were in trouble? As we go back to the idea of examining what the media is trying to report, remember that media outlets are entertainment outlets above all else. They are trying to keep you on their channel. If they have a potential story about a killer, even before a verdict is in, it is in their best interest to indulge in the grandest of possibilities for the story. Rather than report that a man named James Ray has potentially shot someone, it is much more ‘entertaining’ to report that a monster named James Earl Ray has committed and atrocity.
I bring up this simple little anecdote because I don’t fault the media for these sorts of tactics. It wouldn’t be a lie to report that James Earl Ray had been accused of murdering Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., however it would indicate that the media source had already decided that the accused was guilty even before the trial. While that may not be how our court system works, the media isn’t serving on the jury, and they really have no obligation to act like they are. We have become accustomed to preaching that the media has some sort of obligation to fairness and balance, an obligation which comes from…..? I don’t really know. As far as I know, the media as a whole has rarely ever in our history been fair or balanced.
The media isn’t something provided for in the Constitution which has legal standing and requirements to be fair. The media is an entertainment source just like MTV and Comedy Central. You wouldn’t expect John Stewart to be fair or balanced any more than you should expect Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow. They make money by convincing people to watch their network. These subtle tactics are just part of the game they play. Our job as viewers is to understand that what we are watching is entertainment, not truth.
Our job is also not to feed the beast of entertainment when we are fighting for something as important as our freedom. Not sure what I’m talking about? Consider Piers Morgan. Not even a citizen of this country, much less an elected official who actually affects legislation, we have given Mr. Morgan a vastly wider platform than his diminishing ratings deserve. The man’s ratings are where they are because he is rather inconsequential, however we have continued to nibble on the bait he has given us by propping him up as an important figure in the gun control battle.
Piers isn’t the only one. We have continued to post and repost sound bites from media talking heads who have nothing to do with the practical matters affecting our government. Do I really need to know that Ted Nugent is on my side? More often than not, he is, but I’m much more concerned what actual legislation Rand Paul or Justin Amash have presented. Those “news” articles have a real effect on my life. Ted Nugent yelling at Piers Morgan does not.
I bring this up because sifting through piles upon piles of this garbage leaves me with less time to thoroughly examine the true news topics which affect my life and require my attention. I apologize for sounding arrogant, but my standard is higher. I am just as entertained as you by Alex Jones working himself into a frenzy, or by Nancy Grace taking any random missing persons report and turning it into a national headline. I do not however, have time in my life to dedicate my emotions and my brainpower to trying to decide how I feel about what some talking head just said so some other talking head.
If we are truly fighting for something as important as our own liberty, then we need to understand what the media is, and what it is not. It is firstly and most importantly an entertainment source which is a product of the marketplace. It is secondly a potential outlet for important figures to relay information to the masses about what is happening, or about to happen in our society. It is not however, and should never by any means be viewed as an “official story”, from which we retrieve our views, opinions, and beliefs. If we are trying to spread the message of freedom, before we use paid celebrities as our mouthpiece, let us consider using logic and reason, the foundations upon which that freedom is based.