Does the Media Help?

We have all heard about the problems in Ferguson. However does the media coverage of the devastating acts help or hurt the issue?

After the grand jury decided not to indict the officer protests got violent. Guns were fired in crowds and according to reports over a dozen business were set on fire and destroyed in the uproar.

Why would crowds feel this is an appropriate action against the results? Could it be that the media covering some but not all aspects of this case could push the protestors to violence?

I feel that is quite possible. Dozens of the people arrested for the many protests in Ferguson were actually from out of town. Although their original motives may have been honorable, they later participated in the destruction of property and looting of goods. Why would that have anything to do with this case? Perhaps these "out of towners" were only in this protests to take advantage of the situation.

This story from NBC reviews some of the many actions last night including the gun fire at police and the fires protestors set. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/ferguson-businesses-ablaze-bullets-fly-overnight-mayhem-over-grand-jury-n255526

I understand that people may not agree with the ruling, but violence is not the answer to violence. Why would you want to shoot at police officers who are just trying to keep everyone safe? Wouldn't the protestors who are shooting at others be seen as just as bad as the officer they believe intentionally shot the young man?

What do you think? Many people agree and disagree with the ruling but what evidence do they have to make that judgement? Is it based on their view of race, or the facts produced by the media? Maybe they understand more about this case then the common viewer would.