I found this article ("Art as a target for vandals: The cost of freedom") in this morning's International Herald Tribune interesting and disturbing for a variety of reasons. Not least of which is this paragraph towards the end:
Getting attention is always the bottom line. That the hooded Swedes with crowbars in Lund went straight to YouTube (the video has since been removed) was predictable and ominous, a case of Internet self-promotion that is minor compared with the beheadings in Iraq, but with the same idea: that direct technological access promotes acts of violence whose basic requirement is to be witnessed.
It is that last sentence, which I have highlighted in red, that is truly disturbing. It is stated as a fact, but I wonder if that is the case. On the surface, it seems common sensical to suppose that this statement could be valid, but I don't have any studies at my fingertips (truly I haven't looked yet) that would demonstrate a connection between technological access and (especially) visually "interesting" violence. If it is true, it is certainly alarming given the growth of services such as YouTube.
This would be a great study for SNCR to pursue and/or publish in its Journal. Please drop me a line if you are interested.