What I see is that the story of the atrocity is underplayed (to avoid giving free press to the perpetrators), but the victim is given a lot of good press, with multiple stories of their accomplishments, the legacy they left, their personality, and the loved ones they left behind.
This is what has happened with the story of the beheading of the Coptic Christians–we are seeing (on network news) multiple stories where the family members are shown sobbing and mourning, and various family members talk to the reporters about their loved ones (R.I.P.).
It’s very touching, and it definitely helps us to see the victims as real people who suffered real pain. So IMO, the media does demonstrate by this coverage that we do care for the people who are murdered by terrorists.
I don’t see that doing a huge multiple-page story detailing the actual atrocity would demonstrate caring for the victims. If anything, it’s going to appeal to voyeurs, and make the rest of us sick to our stomachs and minds without giving us anything we can do to prevent it from happening again. It might also give weak-minded people and people with a lot of anger ideas about joining up with the terrorists, and it might give teens with emotional and mental illnesses ideas of sick acts to commit to get all kinds of media attention (better than no attention).
I like seeing lots of coverage of the actual victims and learning about their lives and what kind of love and personal mission brought them to an area of the world that the rest of us (at least me!) plan to avoid.
It’s the same thing with any tragic death. Media doesn’t do in-depth coverage of the actual murder or auto accident, detailing all the grisliness and condemning the circumstances or the killer(s). Instead, the media has a small story about the tragedy, and in the days following, they print or broadcast multiple stories about the victim’s life and accomplishments, the family’s grief, and the details of any memorial service or activities.
