Simply put, things won't be reported if nobody reports them. There could be practical and emotional reasons for all this. You're part of that chain where you don't report it because you were instructed not to; which is a fine reason given that you're trying to protect yourself or your job by doing that. The apartment owner might not want to draw undue attention to the complex given that the fact that someone was murdered there might not even matter, beyond superstitious reasons (particularly since, as you said, it was a domestic conflict where the killer already fled to Mexico). The police might not want to report it because it's outside of their jurisdiction at this point, and a solved matter, so why should they publicize it any more than a random theft, if it'll just cause panic and suspicion? Even if the media got a hold of it, what would be the purpose of publishing some story like that? People die all the time, do they publish stories of grandmas dying of heart attacks? Although it was different since it was a violent death, it's not particularly suspicious and the story has been more or less resolved. Publishing something like that is nothing more than a shock piece, which the newspapers might not want to do.
Likewise, what benefit does it bring to you to be able to know something like that? Sure, you can say it might make you more aware of crime rates in your community (again, seems to be a domestic dispute where the killer already fled and isn't likely to return, so it has no use for you to know). But ultimately, it's not a particular concern to the vast majority of people. Those who actually need to know will find out through other means, to everyone else it's just a number in a statistic. Sure, it means that without you telling me, I would have never found out about it. But what good does it do for me to know? Of course, that's not to say that it should be actively suppressed, just that I don't expect people to expend effort (because, yes, publishing this stuff requires effort) so that people can potentially read about a piece of information that's completely useless to them.
But on that, maybe there is some use for a different group of people to know. For example, the people in the Mexican town or neighbourhood that the murderer fled to might benefit from knowing. Hell, maybe the piece actually got published there. Would you know about it, since you don't know Spanish? It's funny how these kinds of divides, particularly in language, present such a strong barrier to information spread. For example, I'm a Russian speaker, and a lot of Americans don't realize that anchors on Russian state media openly mock Americans for voting in Trump because "Trump is ours" (directly transcribing). There's nobody sitting around translating every piece of foreign media, so simply by that virtue, there's so much information that we can never even hope to access.
There's not really a point to this, but no matter how you take it, your perspective will be biased by some sort of selection bias somehow. At some point we have to accept that we have to accept aggregate statistics, or layman summaries, or opinionated pieces on large swaths of news and science. You can say that you're objective about issues like immigration or COVID vaccines or whatnot, but there's no way you've read it all, and at some point you accepted someone's potentially biased summary on it. Even original research itself can be biased. It's just how the world is, and trying to know everything or even taking comfort in having access to every piece of knowledge is a fruitless endeavour.
Simply put, things won't be reported if nobody reports them. There could be practical and emotional reasons for all this. You're part of that chain where you don't report it because you were instructed not to; which is a fine reason given that you're trying to protect yourself or your job by doing that. The apartment owner might not want to draw undue attention to the complex given that the fact that someone was murdered there might not even matter, beyond superstitious reasons (particularly since, as you said, it was a domestic conflict where the killer already fled to Mexico). The police might not want to report it because it's outside of their jurisdiction at this point, and a solved matter, so why should they publicize it any more than a random theft, if it'll just cause panic and suspicion? Even if the media got a hold of it, what would be the purpose of publishing some story like that? People die all the time, do they publish stories of grandmas dying of heart attacks? Although it was different since it was a violent death, it's not particularly suspicious and the story has been more or less resolved. Publishing something like that is nothing more than a shock piece, which the newspapers might not want to do.
Likewise, what benefit does it bring to you to be able to know something like that? Sure, you can say it might make you more aware of crime rates in your community (again, seems to be a domestic dispute where the killer already fled and isn't likely to return, so it has no use for you to know). But ultimately, it's not a particular concern to the vast majority of people. Those who actually need to know will find out through other means, to everyone else it's just a number in a statistic. Sure, it means that without you telling me, I would have never found out about it. But what good does it do for me to know? Of course, that's not to say that it should be actively suppressed, just that I don't expect people to expend effort (because, yes, publishing this stuff requires effort) so that people can potentially read about a piece of information that's completely useless to them.
But on that, maybe there is some use for a different group of people to know. For example, the people in the Mexican town or neighbourhood that the murderer fled to might benefit from knowing. Hell, maybe the piece actually got published there. Would you know about it, since you don't know Spanish? It's funny how these kinds of divides, particularly in language, present such a strong barrier to information spread. For example, I'm a Russian speaker, and a lot of Americans don't realize that anchors on Russian state media openly mock Americans for voting in Trump because "Trump is ours" (directly transcribing). There's nobody sitting around translating every piece of foreign media, so simply by that virtue, there's so much information that we can never even hope to access.
There's not really a point to this, but no matter how you take it, your perspective will be biased by some sort of selection bias somehow. At some point we have to accept that we have to accept aggregate statistics, or layman summaries, or opinionated pieces on large swaths of news and science. You can say that you're objective about issues like immigration or COVID vaccines or whatnot, but there's no way you've read it all, and at some point you accepted someone's potentially biased summary on it. Even original research itself can be biased. It's just how the world is, and trying to know everything or even taking comfort in having access to every piece of knowledge is a fruitless endeavour.
Reply With Quote