Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

All of those are places where they at least can continue to harbor the illusion that their vigilance will save them. A TV reporter is asking for the subject's undivided attention. If you dare cross the op-ed staff of the New York Times and watch the shooter's POV video, no one notices the shooter for about 10 seconds or more, even when the gun is trained right on them.

 

Your Facebook friends want to kill you?

 

Maybe for a minute, sure. I certainly wouldn't want to be tasked with doing man-on-the-street today.

But the allure of television and promotion of your "thing" and yourself is too great to stop anybody.

 

I think it's huge. Agreed. I think that the broadcasting of our lives jumped the shark yesterday, and we may finally start to pull back.

 

I don't think so. They'll be forgot about by Monday and it'll be a new day, and like the sands of time, these will be the days of our broadcasting lives.

Things don't change after horrific moments. We're a society of people who want instant celebrity status. This will happen again, sooner than later.

 

One would hope. But the same thing's been said about Reality TV.

And while Reality TV ("Unscripted" for the more highbrow) has seem to have plateaued, it's still going strong.

 

Isn't one of the new Samsung phones advertising a feature where you live broadcast something?

 

Periscope is available on all phones, I'd think.

 

Are you famous enough that killing you would make the story go viral, or that you'd be some "first person shooter's" preferred target?

I'd be more worried about someone robbing my house knowing I wasn't home than I would be about them coming to kill me.

 

The author of the book "Columbine" was just on CNN talking about how the media should be scaling back its coverage of these shootings. OK, buddy.

 

If his Facebook posts are anything like his SJ.com posts ...

(Relax, Dick. It was a joke.)

 

It's on A3 in the Wall Street Journal today.