Shootings in public areas, where lethal violence doesn’t always occur has always struck arguments regarding gun control. Gun violence in places like schools force common folk to relate to possibility of deaths of their own children in previously considered safe areas, whereas inner-city violence isn’t so much of an issue covered in the media, but why does the media cover certain incidences more than others? The United States is run by media, and media is run by money. What the media covers is based on revenue that is to be collected from it. Revenue is based on the number of viewers or number of people reached by the each individual media outlet, and depending on what is being covered can produce more viewers. To reach maximum profit, media outlets must tug at the country’s heartstrings, which is most easily accomplished by relating current news to the everyday person. Due to this, the public is not exposed to inner-city …show more content…
Schools are a state provided commodity, therefore, it is believed that it is a state protected commodity. The steady coverage of school shootings tells the public that schools are not safe enough, when in reality, the country is not safe enough. Avoiding the existing issues that are sitting in the midst of cities like Chicago, or other cities subject to everyday violence makes it known that the United States does not view a life of a kid from Chicago as the same as the life of a kid murdered in a school. This could be because those from crime indulged cities are not seen as innocent. They are not seen as kids doing what they are supposed to, where they are supposed to but those shot in schools are just sitting ducks. They are doing what they are told, how they are told, where they are told putting the blame on who instructed them. These kids are seen to the public as sitting ducks, with little to no protection making it much more relatable to the average