"Grief Porn" (a.k.a. "Mourning Sickness")

[Virgil Showlion]

TL;DR: "Grief porn" dominates the modern 24-hour news cycle. We need to recognize it and apply appropriate filters in our routine news consumption.


For those not familiar with "grief porn", Wiki describes the variety I'm looking at as "the behavior of the news media in the wake of trauma ... a forced or artificial commiseration in response to unfortunate events".

I would add to this: "A pathological tendency to amplify and protract public grief and outrage, especially in the aftermath of a tragedy."

Consider a recent bus/semi-truck collision in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The crash killed 17 young hockey players and seriously injured 14 more. It dominated Canada's national newscasts this evening, which is understandable. However, the longer I watched, the sourer the taste in my mouth got.

From the beginning, the newscast is steeped in hyperbolic language. The anchors refer to "an unimaginable tragedy", "unbearable grief and suffering", "a tidal wave of grief across the nation" and various other media-isms that straddle the line between excessive and outright false.

The tragedy is far from unimaginable. Tragedies of equal or greater scale happen every day of the week, and have for decades.

The grief of the families and friends isn't 'unbearable'. These are clearly people of great faith. They'll grieve, bear the loss, and carry on. Interviews with family members, speaking about the best qualities of the dead, is the least depressing part of the newscast.

Nor is there a "tidal wave of grief across the nation". For the minority of Canadians even aware of the crash, it's not too presumptuous to state there's a "sense of dismay and sympathy". A modest social media 'tribute' provides some evidence to support this. But there is no 'tidal wave of grief' or anything close to it.

"But Virgil," you say, "You're taking those statements too literally."

Perhaps so, but then consider the newscasts themselves. The one we watched monopolized the first half of the 30-minute local newscast and the first half of the 30-minute national/international newscast. How do they fill 30 collective minutes with a news story whose details can reasonably be reported in 5 minutes? Three ways: 1) by interviewing random citizens of Humboldt (the hockey players' hometown) asking questions such as "What do you think this must be like for the victims' families?", 2) making a federal case out of an error by the coroner's office, who misidentified one of the decedents as as one of the in-hospital survivors (and vice-versa), and 3) showing diagrams (fortunately not animations) of how the crash occurred.

(1) and (3) are superfluous, bordering on voyeuristic. (2) does nothing but make a bad situation worse, especially because the commentators use it as an opportunity to pile on more hyperbole. They use the expression "even more unbearable" at one point.

Most damning of all is the chief's appeal to the media at the news conference held by the officials overseeing medical care for the survivors. "What families are asking for now is privacy and space," he starts off. Then he sets out rules: please, no media approaching the families. No media lurking around the hospitals. No media contacting the healthcare workers attending to the survivors. The families' wishes are clear: leave us alone to grieve. And I don't blame them. They're suffered real loss and have no use for superficial grief porn, which remains superficial no matter how much hyperbole and pot stirring is packed into a newscast.

The media has always been bad in this regard, but the 24-hour news cycle, social media, and the growing influence of Millennial anti-stoicism is driving us to new lows. I'm sure everyone reading this can provide their own examples.

I could wish media outlets would spend even a tenth as much time stirring people into a frenzy over national problems such as deficits, the TPP, the surveillance state, fictitious econometrics, the fiscal lunacy of central banks, or any one of a hundred issues that ought to cause nation-wide grief.

[weltschmerz]

If I told you what I think of you and your post, I'd be banned.
I left my stick out.


www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/humboldt-broncos-supporters-across-canada-u-s-leave-hockey-sticks-outside-in-tribute-1.4611069

[Virgil Showlion]

ibid:

Carol Sarler, writing as a guest columnist for The Times, noted that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse. [9]

This is too cynical for my taste, but rings true in the limited sense of well-meaning people making something that's absolutely none of their business into their business.

[weltschmerz]

Apr 9, 2018 23:26:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

ibid:

Carol Sarler, writing as a guest columnist for The Times, noted that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse. [9]

This is too cynical for my taste, but rings true in the limited sense of well-meaning people making something that's absolutely none of their business into their business.

Why report about the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, the Houston hurricane, etc.?
Not our business right?

The entire country of Canada has come together in solidarity and grief, Virgil. But you're above it all, correct?
Stick your proboscis into the air and bitch. Despicable.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 9, 2018 23:35:19 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Apr 9, 2018 23:26:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

ibid:

Carol Sarler, writing as a guest columnist for The Times, noted that "this new and peculiar pornography of grief" is sometimes called a 'tribute', "the cruder truth is that ersatz grief is now the new pornography; like the worst of hard-core, it is stimulus by proxy, voyeuristically piggy-backing upon that which might otherwise be deemed personal and private, for no better reason than frisson and the quickening of an otherwise jaded pulse. [9]

This is too cynical for my taste, but rings true in the limited sense of well-meaning people making something that's absolutely none of their business into their business.

Why report about the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, the Houston hurricane, etc.?
Not our business right?

The entire country of Canada has come together in solidarity and grief, Virgil. But you're above it all, correct?
Stick your proboscis into the air and bitch. Despicable.

Now that you mention it, blanket coverage of the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, etc. has had nothing but ill effects either. It's stirred the public up into a state where half are demanding the government do something, no matter how illogical or oppressive, and the other half resents the first half for slashing and burning freedoms they value.

It's also well known that the notoriety and infamy afforded to mass shooters--especially terrorists and school shooters--is one of the principle motivations for the attacks. Many have gone on record wanting to out-kill past shooters in order to seize the collective heart of the nation for themselves.

If you want to ban any one thing to save lives, it should be reporting of the details of any mass shooting except the number of dead and a brief summary of the circumstances that mentions neither the shooter's name nor his motivations.

As for my being "above it all": think of your tribute as the equivalent of people offering thoughts and prayers in the aftermath of a school shooting. Then you'll have no trouble mocking it all you want.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

The grief of the families and friends isn't 'unbearable'. These are clearly people of great faith. They'll grieve, bear the loss, and carry on.

I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief.

[swamp]

The grief of the families and friends isn't 'unbearable'. These are clearly people of great faith. They'll grieve, bear the loss, and carry on.

Are you vulcan?  

[Green Eyed Lady]

I wish I knew how to say what I'm thinking without messing up, but my problem with this whole media blitz is with sensationalism at the expense of the families. They can't even sit at home to grieve without reporters bugging them. They can't leave the hospital without being dogged with stupid-ass questions like, "How do you feel right now?" "Do you blame.....?" They can't turn on their televisions or radios without seeing and hearing a recap over and over and over again. And by the way, these families have my thoughts and prayers. I'm not a parent and will never understand the depth of their grief.  I can't even imagine their pain, but my heart goes out to them. 

The other issue I have is thinking about that 9 year old boy killed in a car accident by a drunk driver. Was that all over the news except for maybe 2 minutes on the news? I guess you have to die with a lot of other people for your life to matter as much. Why is that? Why do we only want to hear about a bunch of people being killed in the same place but just one doesn't merit the same attention?  When you can answer that question, you will see that Virgil is right.

We mourn nationally over 17 kids being killed at school but not a word about the 156 kids being killed in the nation that day from drive-by shootings, drunk drivers, child abuse....why?  Every day, in the US, an average of 28 people die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver.  That's 11 more people that day than the school shooting, but you sure don't hear a bunch of people screaming about banning alcohol all over the news.

We are all being led around by the nose by the media, letting them tell us what to think, letting them tell us what we should be angry about and telling us who to mourn.   

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 10, 2018 8:28:00 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

The grief of the families and friends isn't 'unbearable'. These are clearly people of great faith. They'll grieve, bear the loss, and carry on.

I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief.

Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one?

More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude?

Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category.

ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.

[zibazinski]

It’s like the weather reports in Florida. One of these days there is going to be a really bad storm but because EVERY storm is a BAD storm, no one pays attention. If the weather reporters didn’t act like the “sky was falling” constantly, when there was actually bad weather, people would hopefully pay attention.

[Cheesy FL-Vol]

Apr 10, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 10, 2018 8:28:00 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief.

Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one?

More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude?

Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category.

ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.

I don't believe there is any such thing as pre-20th century stoicism. I don't believe people dealt with grief any differently 1000 years ago, 100 years ago, or today. The difference today is instant media. I do believe that in the past, those who could not deal with their grief were either unspoken of, shunted aside, or even put into insane asylums. Therefore out of sight and out of mind. I also do believe many people, past or present especially in the case of loss of children, simply lose their faith. Therefore, your "great faith and fortitude" statement should not be a blanket statement.

I do feel, as GEL stated very well, that your so-called grief porn worsens the suffering of those who lose loved ones by the constant exposure. A directly impacted person just has no means of moving through the normal stages of grief when constantly being bombarded by exposure to their given scenario of loss. All of the constant media coverage of events like this, I think, is really not good for society as a whole, since I do believe it numbs us to widespread tragic events.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Apr 10, 2018 9:03:21 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

It’s like the weather reports in Florida. One of these days there is going to be a really bad storm but because EVERY storm is a BAD storm, no one pays attention. If the weather reporters didn’t act like the “sky was falling” constantly, when there was actually bad weather, people would hopefully pay attention.

I noticed the younger weatherman all seem to be chomping at the bit to predict "the big one" so they go off the deep end every time there is a snowflake or a drop of rain.

It annoys the crap out of me because it makes it difficult to make an informed decision.    I don't know meterology I am trusting you to convey information to me properly. 

I only watch KETV 7 now for weather.   That's the only weatherman I trust, especially during severe weather.  If he says it's bad. .. then it's bad.

[weltschmerz]

Without the coverage, they wouldn't have raised over 6 million dollars to help the families out with funeral expenses and future medical costs.
I was watching an interview with a dad who lost his son, and he said "Knowing that the whole country is grieving with us helps. It really helps."

Virgil, it it bothers you so much, turn off  the TV you don't have and don't watch and do something else. Nobody is forcing you to watch it.

[swamp]

Apr 10, 2018 12:32:11 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Apr 10, 2018 9:03:21 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

It’s like the weather reports in Florida. One of these days there is going to be a really bad storm but because EVERY storm is a BAD storm, no one pays attention. If the weather reporters didn’t act like the “sky was falling” constantly, when there was actually bad weather, people would hopefully pay attention.

I noticed the younger weatherman all seem to be chomping at the bit to predict "the big one" so they go off the deep end every time there is a snowflake or a drop of rain.

It annoys the crap out of me because it makes it difficult to make an informed decision.    I don't know meterology I am trusting you to convey information to me properly. 

I only watch KETV 7 now for weather.   That's the only weatherman I trust, especially during severe weather.  If he says it's bad. .. then it's bad.

If Jim Cantore from The Weather Channel shows up, you're fucked. 

[swamp]

If I had a hockey stick at my house, I would put it out on my porch in joining the families in grieving.  

[happyhoix]

Apr 10, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 10, 2018 8:28:00 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief.

Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one?

More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude?

Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category.

ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.

You can't impose a law that requires everyone in society to stoically accept loss and carry on in great fortitude and faith.

People grief differently. People grieve private losses differently from public losses. Some people get spurred on to action due to grief; some people prefer to sit and read through websites describing other people's emotions following horrible losses, and grieve with them. Some people try to forget the horrible loss and act like nothing happened.  Some people rely on their faith, and some people have no faith to rely on. Sometimes, a horrible loss makes you lose your faith, and sometimes, it makes you find it.

Why don't we accept that humans are a diverse panoply of traits, including the trait of how they deal with loss, celebrate this diversity, abstain from criticizing how someone else deals with grief, and move on.

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2018 13:07:37 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Apr 10, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one?

More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude?

Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category.

ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.

You can't impose a law that requires everyone in society to stoically accept loss and carry on in great fortitude and faith.

People grief differently. People grieve private losses differently from public losses. Some people get spurred on to action due to grief; some people prefer to sit and read through websites describing other people's emotions following horrible losses, and grieve with them. Some people try to forget the horrible loss and act like nothing happened.  Some people rely on their faith, and some people have no faith to rely on. Sometimes, a horrible loss makes you lose your faith, and sometimes, it makes you find it.

Why don't we accept that humans are a diverse panoply of traits, including the trait of how they deal with loss, celebrate this diversity, abstain from criticizing how someone else deals with grief, and move on.

"Move towards this as a response"  is not  "imposing a law".

[weltschmerz]

Apr 10, 2018 7:19:03 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 9, 2018 23:35:19 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Why report about the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, the Houston hurricane, etc.?
Not our business right?

The entire country of Canada has come together in solidarity and grief, Virgil. But you're above it all, correct?
Stick your proboscis into the air and bitch. Despicable.

Now that you mention it, blanket coverage of the Pulse shootings, the Vegas massacres, school shootings, etc. has had nothing but ill effects either. It's stirred the public up into a state where half are demanding the government do something, no matter how illogical or oppressive, and the other half resents the first half for slashing and burning freedoms they value.

It's also well known that the notoriety and infamy afforded to mass shooters--especially terrorists and school shooters--is one of the principle motivations for the attacks. Many have gone on record wanting to out-kill past shooters in order to seize the collective heart of the nation for themselves.

If you want to ban any one thing to save lives, it should be reporting of the details of any mass shooting except the number of dead and a brief summary of the circumstances that mentions neither the shooter's name nor his motivations.

As for my being "above it all": think of your tribute as the equivalent of people offering thoughts and prayers in the aftermath of a school shooting. Then you'll have no trouble mocking it all you want.

Not even close to the same thing.
After every school shooting, which is happening with greater and greater frequency, people offer the useless platitudes of"thoughts and prayers" in lieu of actually doing something about it.
They still won't vote for candidates who espouse greater gun control and keep yammering about how the government will have to pry the guns from their cold, dead hands.
It's a solution, but many don't want to hear about it, and even mock the survivors, or say the whole thing was a false flag and the victims were actors.

I'm standing with these families in grief, and that's why I put my stick out. That's all I can do, and donate some money so the future isn't quite so hard for them.

You can bitch all you want. Enjoy.

[Deleted]

Gun control is the false flag to be waving at these grieving family members.  It's just the gun control proponents, trying to not waste a tragedy. 

[Deleted]

The 'behind the scene' activity. 



Salesman from ABC;  We're retaining excellent numbers on our news cycle viewership.  


Large corporate, media time buyer;  Sounds good, we need a 60 second slot to introduce a new product that matches your evening network news, target demographic.


Salesman from ABC;  We can accommodate.  The cost of research for the effect of the 'directed emotional premise program' requires us to raise our rates slightly, but you'll find the exposure well worth it.


Large corporate, media time buyer:  Sounds good.  Same payment terms?


Salesman from ABC;  Of course!  Drinks/Dinner's on us.

[happyhoix]

Apr 10, 2018 13:13:20 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Apr 10, 2018 13:07:37 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

You can't impose a law that requires everyone in society to stoically accept loss and carry on in great fortitude and faith.

People grief differently. People grieve private losses differently from public losses. Some people get spurred on to action due to grief; some people prefer to sit and read through websites describing other people's emotions following horrible losses, and grieve with them. Some people try to forget the horrible loss and act like nothing happened.  Some people rely on their faith, and some people have no faith to rely on. Sometimes, a horrible loss makes you lose your faith, and sometimes, it makes you find it.

Why don't we accept that humans are a diverse panoply of traits, including the trait of how they deal with loss, celebrate this diversity, abstain from criticizing how someone else deals with grief, and move on.

"Move towards this as a response"  is not  "imposing a law".

I'm trying to imagine how we get people to 'move towards' faith based stoicism without somehow making it a legal requirement.

E.g., make it a law that TV and social media cannot post excessively grief filled posts/videos/commentaries, and instead, must carry short reminders to 'trust in God' and "everything happens for a reason' so that people learn to curb their excessive displays?

Sounds Orwellian.

Or maybe there is some other, more organic way to get the North American population to 'move towards' faith based stoicism, something like how an amoeba gradually moves away from the light?  I'm curious to hear how that would work.

 

[weltschmerz]

Apr 10, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 10, 2018 8:28:00 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief.

Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one?

More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude?

Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category.

ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.

What are you talking about, with this pre-20th century stoicism? Where people persisted in great faith and fortitude?
When I was little, my friend Marco was killed by a car. His mother never got over it, and LOST her faith. She was never the same again.

A family friend,Rita, lost a 10 year old to cancer. She not only lost her faith but she killed herself. It was too much to bear.
I think this faith and fortitude is a figment of your imagination.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Apr 10, 2018 8:47:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 10, 2018 8:28:00 GMT -5 Cheesy FL-Vol said:

I disagree with this statement in general, not necessarily in regard to this particular incident. There are many who cannot (regardless of faith or lack of it) who feel they cannot go on after the loss of a loved one. Some fall into drug abuse, alcohol abuse, or take their own lives. I personally know a woman whose teenage daughter was killed in a car accident. She 2 months later she committed suicide. She could not move past the grief.

Indeed. But even today, is this a typical response or an exceptional one?

More importantly: as a society, do we want to move towards this as a response, or toward pre-20th-Century stoicism, where people were routinely confronted with the death of loved ones--including children--and yet persisted in great faith and fortitude?

Most importantly of all: if we examine the total effects of (what I'm calling) "grief porn", does it ease suffering or does it worsen it? My argument is that, while it may be well-meaning, it clearly, objectively falls into the latter category.

ETA: I've said so many times before, but I encourage everyone reading this to look up the West Nickel Mines school shooting and the response of the community there.

Such grace makes me feel small in comparison.  My heart is both broken and full at the same time.  I don't think people understand that forgiveness is as much (if not more) for the person doing the forgiving than the person committing the wrong.  I saw comments that people criticized the community for forgiving the shooter because he did not ask for forgiveness.  That isn't necessary, IMO.  Forgiveness is letting go of bad feelings that will fester.  I know I couldn't do it but oh my...how I admire these people that they can. 

I was especially touched by their treatment of the shooter's family.  It is easy to forget they are victims of a sort also.  It makes me feel quite lacking personally but uplifted at the same time.

[toomuchreality]

Excessive anything gets annoying, IMO. Doesn't matter if it's this, or something Donny said, or the flavor of peanut butter. 
I'm not saying people shouldn't grieve, or be supportive in whatever way they choose. It's the over the top excessiveness that bothers me.
Like they're all trying to out sensationalize each other. (Is that a proper sentence?  )   

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 10, 2018 14:36:54 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I think this faith and fortitude is a figment of your imagination.

I don't.

The fact that it wasn't utterly without exception doesn't mean there wasn't a vast difference between then and today.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 10, 2018 12:44:35 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I was watching an interview with a dad who lost his son, and he said "Knowing that the whole country is grieving with us helps. It really helps."

What else are they going to show you? The other 29 families telling them to sod off?

Besides this, what else is a man going to say pinned in front of the camera? "You didn't know our son from Adam, you're not deeply grieved by his death--you can't possibly be, and your tributes are small solace."?

He's a Canadian. He's going to say the courteous and appropriate thing. It doesn't mean total strangers putting out hockey sticks and knocking back an extra shot of bourbon "for the boys" is helping his emotional state.

The few people who actually knew his son, were stakeholders in his life, and feel genuine grief at his passing: different story. One that has nothing to do with the media or 35 million people including you and me.

[weltschmerz]

Prior to the 20th century, Virgil, people had very large families because someone was needed to help work the farm, and losing kids to the smallest things that we have vaccinations and antibiotics for was a fact of life.
A family with 14 kids probably didn't have all of them surviving. Fortitude was a given, because you had to keep going and look after the other 11 kids who survived.
Perhaps you'd like to go back to those good old days.

[weltschmerz]

You're being very hateful about the Humboldt tragedy, Virgil.
I expected nothing less from you.
If the outpouring of grief is so annoying to you, stop watching TV at your grandparents' house.

Problem solved. 

[mmhmm]

Apr 10, 2018 15:14:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 10, 2018 12:44:35 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

I was watching an interview with a dad who lost his son, and he said "Knowing that the whole country is grieving with us helps. It really helps."

What else are they going to show you? The other 29 families telling them to sod off?

Besides this, what else is a man going to say pinned in front of the camera? "You didn't know our son from Adam, you're not deeply grieved by his death--you can't possibly be, and your tributes are small solace."?

He's a Canadian. He's going to say the courteous and appropriate thing. It doesn't mean total strangers putting out hockey sticks and knocking back an extra shot of bourbon "for the boys" is helping his emotional state.

The few people who actually knew his son, were stakeholders in his life, and feel genuine grief at his passing: different story. One that has nothing to do with the media or 35 million people including you and me.

For some people, empathic grief is, indeed, a reality. For those who aren't all that empathetic this is, often, unfathomable; however, it really does occur. Those who are highly empathetic will feel genuine grief at the loss of a child's life, or (for some) any life. These same empathetic people may also benefit from knowing others grieve with them because they understand the empathy behind that grief.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 10, 2018 15:33:03 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Prior to the 20th century, Virgil, people had very large families because someone was needed to help work the farm, and losing kids to the smallest things that we have vaccinations and antibiotics for was a fact of life.
A family with 14 kids probably didn't have all of them surviving. Fortitude was a given, because you had to keep going and look after the other 11 kids who survived.
Perhaps you'd like to go back to those good old days.

I admire the stoicism, faith, forgiveness, and perseverance of "those good old days". This doesn't mean I welcome the many hardships that made it a necessity