Don't turn blind eye to mass killings

Don’t turn blind eye to mass killings

I agree with Lane Filler that the coverage of these mass killings was lacking [“Little reaction to mass college slayings,” Opinion, Nov. 17]. A host of reasons can be offered as to why. In my view, the media suspected the public wouldn’t be grabbed by the Virginia killings. The targeted shooting with three dead and the killer caught was not as interesting.

The Idaho mass killing was different. No killer and a knife was used. So that would be covered longer. To stay newsworthy, any killing — mass or otherwise — needs a special element. It must truly shock us.

Victims whom we find attractive (Gabby Petito), defenseless (Thomas Valva), who are victims of a racially motivated attack (Buffalo), or have a large number of victims (Las Vegas) will stay in the news and get more coverage than those killings that don’t have these elements. And now, the one in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Filler’s friend’s comment about the lack of extended coverage of the mass killings being “expected,” while sad, is true. We need to be sure we never become so blasé as to appear to be unaffected by mass (or any) killing of humans. If we do, we as a country and as a people will suffer much harm.

 — Steve Boyce, Dix Hills

Lane Filler has to chill. He says that “we’re supposed to be more shaken than this” by the killing of students in Virginia and Idaho. How does he know “we” are not?

He says he watched TV and texted friends to elicit reactions, and he apparently was disappointed with the response. I didn’t get a text from him. There was no voicemail from him on either of my phones. He doesn’t know how I feel about these gut-wrenching events.

Maybe to make him feel better, I could share some texts and Facebook remarks that have come my way.

Maybe the news media, for a change, is not sensationalizing this out of respect for the families. There is a mental health crisis in this country. Filler shouldn’t go down the rabbit hole.

 — Susan Hennings Lowe, Huntington

Florida and Hofstra bridges are different

A reader compared Florida’s rebuilding of the Pine Island bridge to Hofstra University’s pedestrian walkway [“Florida rebuilt bridge in days. LI? Not quite,” Letters, Nov. 21]. Talk about an apples-to-oranges comparison. Florida’s bridge was essential and demanded an immediate response. Hofstra had another bridge about 100 feet away and provided a shuttle.

Florida completed a temporary repair using its personnel and probably delayed other projects. I assume the cost was high. Hofstra, as a private university, had to consider cost, staffing and other projects.

Before giving praise to Florida or condemning a private institution, let’s consider other factors.

 — Mark Weintraub, Old Bethpage