Both Michael Moore and Beth Loffreda present excellent examples of how the media is able to manipulate and mold our society's understanding of violence. Moore demonstrates his views through film in Bowling for Columbine, whereas Loffreda uses print in order to get her ideas out there in Losing Matt Shepard.
Moore and Loffreda each take drastically different approaches in regard to how they presented facts to back up their respective arguments. Moore liberally interprets the facts so that his argument appears to be much stronger than it really is, and that isn't even counting the fact that he reenacted certain scenes - purposely misleading his audience. As a result, his argument is very one-sided. He did not make a documentary: he made a movie. Loffreda, on the other hand, took a different approach. She lays out the facts for the reader. She made it a point to talk to people from varying lifestyles and people who had different opinions on what happened.
What she did was something that Moore failed to do - she looked at the situation objectively. She laid out the facts - and didn't have to practically brainwash her readers in order to do so.
At the same time, I think it is very difficult to try and guess how Loffreda would portray the Columbine in an essay, or how Moore would present Matt Shepard's brutal murder in a film. It is impossible to say what kind of a standpoint each would take without at least some hesitation and doubt, because for as much as we know about each of their opinions and methods, there is so much more that we don't know (for example, we were only able to read a selection from Loffreda's essay - how can one gain any sense...