http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/movies/23movi.html
The mass shooting on the Virginia Tech campus was a ghastly, unique event, and yet the reaction to it, online and in the other news media, quickly took on an almost ritualistic predictability. The crime was so horrifically irrational that the machinery of interpretation went into overdrive, as though the effects of the violence could be healed if the violence itself could somehow be given meaning. Like everything else in contemporary American media culture, the effort to wrest sense from senselessness was full of contention and contradiction. And of course as soon as the words and images that Seung-Hui Cho had sent to NBC began to circulate, there were fingers of accusation, or at least concern, wagging in the direction of popular culture. That was followed, as expected, by indignant dismissals of the idea that the movies (this crime’s primary scapegoat, since Mr. Cho does not appear to have been a fan of hip-hop or heavy metal) could be in any way to blame for the horror in Blacksburg.
We have been here before. The extreme, inexplicable actions of a tiny number of profoundly alienated, mentally disturbed young men have a way of turning attention toward the cultural interests they share with countless others who would never dream — or who would only dream — of committing acts of homicidal violence. The Columbine massacre provoked a flurry of disquiet about the Goth subculture, with its histrionically sinister music and style of dress. John Hinckley Jr.’s unhinged devotion to Jodie Foster led some commentators to wonder about the connection between “Taxi Driver” and Mr. Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Charles Manson, it may be recalled, was obsessed with the Beatles.
What does the red underlined sentence mean in the article?