testtest

This can be taken many ways?

?

  • good idea

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • bad idea

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • change somehow

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • just turn off media related news

    Votes: 2 22.2%

  • do you think the finding are correct

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • do you think he knows nothing

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I (meaning you) have a better solution

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Media makes everything worse

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
when the media over glorifies somethings, that's when the copy-cats come outta the woodwork. look at all those stupid movies, like "Fast and furious" and all the racing those morons do.. i "see" many car races on I-95 nearly nightly, and i's sickening.

as for the news, when the media, expands it's coverage, i firmly believe the sick minded or the bullied ones, or the "i just gotta try that", ones come crawling out to do the same.

for the life of me, i know that mass shootings took place 40, 50, 60 years ago, but we had like what......3 maybe 4 news media networks?

and even then, there wasn't any 24 hour news channels..the tv stations operated like from 7 AM till about midnight, then they went off the air. the news back in the day was maybe 1 national report, then the rest was local. if you watch maybe NBC, CBS, or ABC, there was just too much news around the world, to stay focused on 1 stinking mass shooting.

with the 24/7/365 media, we are over exposed to all sorts of crap.

best thing the media can do is......SHUT UP about some events. but noooo...everyone is looking to get a better job with the BIG networks, or bring in more advertisers dollars, to keep the stations up and running.
 
I have thought this for years. Shootings are also cyclic it seems. I don't think that there is a cure, but a need to be vigilant and have the ability to respond in kind. That is the main issue is the lack of ability to respond in kind, because these shooters pick locations that have been deemed by law, unarmed.
 
I would like to honestly believe that the news networks don’t intentionally glorify mass shootings and the shooter(s) and (networks) because of the rush to be the first to the
“Breaking News” very little common sense is used in verbiage. Only recently has my go to network started using the term (AR Style rifle) instead of (assault weapon)
For that reason I’ll choose…..
 
From the day the human race came down out of the trees we have been bent on finding more and more creative ways of killing. Limiting media’s coverage and exposure based on any given groups preferences/interests is a slippery slope.
 
If it’s not on the News - it didn’t happen.

The message they emphasize is not the tragedy but the implement. On the other hand a tornado being a natural, powerful, destructive and deadly force - but it’s the human “carbon footprint” gets the blame.

If they can’t sell a story with sensationalism and improve viewer ratings then they become just another flyer on the abandoned car windshield at the shuttered mall parking lot…or a primetime info-mercial.

I recall back in the 90’s Ted Koppel or someone else of journalistic prominence said that news agencies used to actually go out and get the story, back it up with facts and only then submit it for publication, now in this fast paced electronic age everything is forced through without checking only to be retracted subtly without any fanfare.

The immense circulation and popular National Enquirer made millions with their early bizarre articles using this sort of “journalism” well before the contemporary MSM went this route. Ever notice the experts that appear on tv media are considered “contributors“...that means they are paid for their opinions and views just like the Enquirer use to do when some yokel claimed to have taught French to Bigfoot while living in a shack in upstate NY during the Eisenhower years.
 
The best solution I have heard is for the media to refuse to give out the shooter's name. Given that it is reported that many of these individuals are seeking their "15 minutes of fame", deny it to them. Let other potential miscreants know they too will go out in a sea of anonymity.

Portray the shooters as failures who also failed to garner attention through their evil actions. Let others know that they will be represented the same way.

Tell them their remains will be buried in an unmarked grave, where their identity will be forgotten forever. Make it obvious that the memory of anyone who behaves this way will be erased. Tell them we won't mention your name--EVER. Make it obvious that you won't be remembered, only the victims of your crime.
 
Blackmesa96 said:
The best solution I have heard is for the media to refuse to give out the shooter's name. Given that it is reported that many of these individuals are seeking their "15 minutes of fame", deny it to them. Let other potential miscreants know they too will go out in a sea of anonymity.

Portray the shooters as failures who also failed to garner attention through their evil actions. Let others know that they will be represented the same way.

Tell them their remains will be buried in an unmarked grave, where their identity will be forgotten forever. Make it obvious that the memory of anyone who behaves this way will be erased. Tell them we won't mention your name--EVER. Make it obvious that you won't be remembered, only the victims of your crime.
Click to expand...
I like this. Good approach.
Never happen for reasons other mentioned earlier about the news.
 
I would report this person as a________(insert a colorful word) is being a ________(colorful word). I think the longer the person/people are active in their crime they'll get more glory as what they want.
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
I would report this person as a________(insert a colorful word) is being a ________(colorful word). I think the longer the person/people are active in their crime they'll get more glory as what they want.
Click to expand...
which if i recall, there isn't as much of the persons name being used, but rather, "the gunman". by using the persons name, that in of itself over glorifies his deeds. by masking his name, he is powerless, and nothing more than whale snot.
 
I agree part of the problem is the 24 hour news networks trying to make a buck by sensationalizing everything. But a bigger part is that they have an agenda. The biggest two are the disarmament of America and climate change. The more they can blame the gun, or human responsibility for the weather, the more they will make it a big deal. There are plenty of other things they can sensationalize. Like the mess at the border. They certainly did that during the last administration. But it’s all crickets now that “their side” is in power. Sensationalizing the border crisis now doesn’t fit their agenda, so they ignore it.
 
Now people prefer listening to what reinforces their views. I'm not sure we get exposed to news any longer but drowned in opinion. The left listens to their opinion shows to discover what the right is doing and the right listens to theirs to find out what the left is doing. Opinion shows exist because they make money and we are to lazy to gather information for ourselves. How many people with views different than yours do you spend time with in your personal life. This does not include the work environment since earning a living (for me) is top priority. Making information available en masse has come with it's problems. Many things are viewed as off the wall, not true, and limiting, yet they might have some element of truth. My question, who actually delivers news today?
 
**COMPLETELY MY PERSONAL OPINION**

Anything that the media talks about gets worse. The media in its entirety needs to be shut down. They only stir up fear, feed hatred, fuel Democratic narratives and lie out their you know what’s. The media is a tool filled up of puppets controlled by the democrats.
 
Sure, but if you look at the state of the country today.... Major cities, almost every one, a :poop:hole. Unsafe for regular people to inhabit. FAR more murder goes on, unreported or under reported on a daily basis in Chitcago, St. Louis, LA, NYC, Baltimore, Cincinatti, etc.. Actual mass shootings, committed generally with rifles by a lone gunman on a large crowd take so few lives in the big picture as to be statistically insignificant. Drive bys and gang shootings make up the vast majority of what the media calls mass shootings and school shootings. 4 people shot = mass shooting. Teenage black kid shot down on a sidewalk in front of a school by a rival gang member = school shooting.

The fact is young people today, especially young, urban males, have no respect for life. Including their own. They have no fear of going to prison. Elderly folks are trapped in their houses that they can't sell because they are too old to get a mortgage and their nice middle class house is now situated in a ghetto. They're afraid to walk to the corner market or go out and mow their tiny lawns.

Now we "Could" have a frank discussion about what the root causes for this is if it were allowed here, but it's not. One thing is for certain, things are definitely WAY different than they were 40 years ago. And 40 years ago law-abiding Americans still had large numbers of guns. The media absolutely is complicit in peddling the ideology that is creating these circumstances, even if it is an unintended but clearly accepted consequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top