See, I don't understand why I have to have all these debates with people who cannot seem to comprehend the simple concept that if you have an event that attracts crowds, then you better make sure you can control them. It just makes me grouchy.
First was a guy in marketing, who told me very importantly that he was looking at it from the angle of an "events" person. I told him, in the hopes of shutting him up, that I was looking at it from the angle of a lawyer, but that didn't seem to faze him. Then again, that's maybe because so many lawyers are too self-important, and so my law degree didn't mean squat to him no more.
According to marketing guy, since the police authorities are so used to events like shows and concerts, that by now, it should be a natural reaction for them to just show up and use crowd control every time there's an event. And of course, we should expect them to show up in adequate numbers, enough to control 30,000 people. Clearly, I thought, this guy is looking at it from the perspective of an "events" person out to save his ass, much like the producers of Wowowee, the show that left 74 people dead as doormats (which is what they were basically used as) as a result of last week's stampede.
Second, was a businessman, who bewailed the finding of the Under Secretary that blame should be put on the producers. For some reason, his conclusion was that it would be bad for business if charges would be brought against the organizers of the show. Of course, I kept my reaction to myself, but I experienced severe cramps as a result of shutting my trap.
(Basically, these thoughts included analytical comments ranging from: "But couldn't this just mean that businesses intending to stage events will just hire more security guards and build more safety barricades, thereby leading to a safer environment for all that could possibly attract even more crowds because audience members would feel safe and comfortable in the venue?" to "But any lawsuit's bad for "a" business, but that doesn't mean the lawsuit shouldn't be brought if it's necessary to right a wrong," and even wise-ass reactions like "Hello! Do you honestly believe that slapping the wrists of a few show biz moguls will dampen the enthusiasm of TV networks from trying to make money from gullible people through cheap shows?")
Well, never mind. I shouldn't even pipe up until I have all the facts of the tragedy, which I freely admit I do not have. But I do have this very deeply ingrained abhorrence for idiotic noontime TV game shows, and so I'm mighty glad the producers of this particular show are in deep shit at the moment. Not that I know any of them. In fact, if I knew any of them, I might just be more compassionate here and now. And I wouldn't be writing this piece. But I don't, so I will continue denouncing away, obliviously and very happily.
Serves you right, for attracting the poor and the ignorant and letting them wait in line for days under the hot sun and the pouring rain. Serves you right, for taking advantage of their poverty, and stoking the flames of their desperation. Serves you right, for putting profits ahead of humanity. (Hey, I might actually end up with a good speech here)
Of course, I don't hope that the ultimate ending to this should be that the show will be cancelled. (For sure, it will, except that the network and the producers will merely rename the show, maybe reformat it a little bit, and life will be the same as before.) What I do hope is that some people will have learned a few important lessons (like "Greed is not good"). Perhaps, networks can just think about caring for their audience, instead of merely blitzing their competitors to the ground, whatever the cost.
And as for you audience members, you better keep in mind another of my pet peeves - respect personal space. Don't push. Don't shove. And get out of my face. (Yep. There you have it. I am grouchy)