The military sent a warning! That's not normal. That's news.
The U.S. Army sent a notice to service members, citing an unidentified FBI report, reminding them of the "run / hide / fight" protocol.
Also, as someone with degrees in journalism and PR, and who worked in the media for eight years ... yes, and I have experienced this sort of bullshit first-hand.
You are not alone.
The only priority among media outlets nowadays is anything that will move papers / magazines / clicks / subscriptions. Or, as the philosopher Watterson put it, "It's a crass culture, Hobbes. Shoddy and quick is all anybody knows."
Its the same media-inspired overreaction--almost entirely based on what
kind of character and/or perception is
accepted, and what kind is not. In 1974--a period of climbing of violence in the United States--endless numbers of "journalists" promised or tried to pin the "will inspire" / "irresponsible" label on the film
Death Wish, as if legions were going to become vigilantes as a response to the film lead's reaction to street crime (no, that did not happen).
It was overreaction and BS, as the United States had been (as noted earlier) climbing in violent crime (and unsolved crimes) in general since the previous decade, yet there was no wave of vigilante justice accompanying it. The Brian Garfield novel (published in 1972) was--like the film--offering a hypothetical look at what one person would do if affected by violent crime, yet to anyone who actually
read the novel, they understood it was not a call to action / advocating vigilante "justice" at all, and again, the novel and film did not create the so-named "copycat" reactions.
I will note that some of the same critics who shook fists at nonexistent inspiration / reactions to Paul Kersey (the lead character of
Death Wish)
praised the murderous lead of
Taxi Driver, with many justifying his actions as understandable/heroic and issuing no fear-mongering articles about the potential for Travis Bickle copycats.
Again, its about what
kind of character is accepted and what kind is not, despite both adopting extreme measures & taking the law into their hands, which is an undeniably dishonest position. Few will ever address that.
The same applies to the
Joker film, where some irresponsible "journalists" have preconceived notions about the character and the film (long before seeing it) and reach wildly inaccurate conclusions, not in any legitimate interest of public safety, but often due to their own agendas.
