Back in the old days, any shocking news stories would hit the public's consciousness first when a paperboy would shout the lurid headlines at them as they walked to work or tried to get their shoes shined, if old gangster movies are accurate documentaries of early 20th century life.
Nowadays they hit the Internet first, and the Internet reacts, as you might expect, stupidly. Here are a few of the most predictable and annoying reactions you'll get on any big story.
6"I Don't Understand Why You're All So Shocked By This."
"This is just another case of ____. Why is this even news?" Sound familiar?
Fill in the blank with "someone from X group doing Y stereotypical behavior." Like "a right wing nutjob saying something crazy" or "a liberal protesting about something for attention."
Sure, sometimes stories are obviously slow news day stories that deserve the "Why is this news?" treatment, but I'm talking about obviously relevant stories that would naturally shock the average reader.
Sometimes this comes from well-intentioned people who aren't observant enough to notice what's unusual about the story. "So some rich lady fell down some stairs in her one-story house somehow and her gambling-addicted nephew inherits all her money. So basically, somebody died. Big deal. People die every day! There was a story just yesterday about a guy who had a heart attack during the Super Bowl. There's nothing new under the sun, folks. Death happens! I don't know why you're so shocked!"
That might be a bit extreme, but a lot of simple people can oversimplify a story so that in summary, of course it sounds like a cliche. A story about Gaddafi's excesses? "Oh, boy, a dictator being eccentric and insane, like we haven't heard that before." Only when he's actually in the process of being overthrown, and these things are directly fueling the anger of the people overthrowing him, it seems kind of relevant what specific things are riling them up.
AP, via The Guardian
Like this stupid couch he bought for his daughter.
But worse than the well-intentioned people are the people who think that posting news stories is some kind of contest where you try to shock other people, and the least shocked person is the "winner." They see being shocked or disturbed or surprised as an admission of weakness, and will respond to an Internet snuff film by saying, "Well, that's not nearly as bad as that chainsaw one. You mean you guys have never heard of it?"
Shock hipsters are the worst hipsters.
5Compulsion To Identify the Good Guy and Bad Guy
I think it's a bit hypocritical to jump on people for "judging" since we all make some level of judgment if the story is shocking enough. The kind of "judging" that bothers me is when the person literally acts like a judge that has been given this case and everything depends on them making a ruling.
You know what I mean, when a person starts out saying, "Well, it's hard to make a call here, and we really don't have all the facts, but ..." and goes on to list the pros and cons, and draw a conclusion about who the guilty party is. If it's hard to make a call, you don't have to make a call. Of course everybody's entitled to their opinion, but these people aren't acting like they are letting their natural reactions out, they're acting like they really don't want to judge, but someone has begged them to do it and they must heed the call. The Internet needs them, and they can't let it down.
"It's my CIVIC DUTY!"
If you are that kind of person, then as a member of the Internet, I officially inform you that the Internet Court relieves you of your duties. You are now free to act on your own. Next time you run into a news story that's hard to judge, feel free to say, "Well, it's hard to make a call here, and we really don't have the facts," and then stop. You are freed from your judicial obligations and can go spend more time arguing about video games or something.
The worst thing is that when drawing the good guy/bad guy lines, it always seems to be a zero-sum game. One side has to be good and one side has to be bad, so you can take sides! Make posters! Chant slogans! Make pithy sarcastic quips! If both sides are morally flawed, but one side bears more liability than the other, it's hard to really sum that up on a bumper sticker or scathing signature.
This mentality really shows whenever you bring up flaws in one party's actions, like "The kid shouldn't have been putting ice cream down people's pants in the first place." Then some people will jump up and say, "Oh, so you're saying he deserved to get beaten up? You're saying the bullies were saints? You're saying they did the world a favor? THE KID IS IN THE HOSPITAL AND YOU ARE CONDONING THIS?" I mean, come on. If one side is shown to be more wrong than you thought, it doesn't automatically make the other side less wrong. You don't have to subtract the wrongness from the other column, it's not a fucking math problem.
Some people just want any controversial story to fit into the pattern of villain vs. saint, so if you're finding any flaws in one party, you must be trying to turn them into the villain, and logically, turning the other side into the saint. But so many stories are two "villains" trying to screw each other over, or a bunch of bumbling "saints" coming to blows because of a pile of misunderstandings.