Could the coverage itself be producing more of the same? When these neanderthals see that France is considering a type of Patriot act and have mobilized 10,000 cops to guard schools and malls does it give fledgling wing nuts that extra push?
Printable View
Could the coverage itself be producing more of the same? When these neanderthals see that France is considering a type of Patriot act and have mobilized 10,000 cops to guard schools and malls does it give fledgling wing nuts that extra push?
Absolutely. The mainstream press is essentially an extension of the government and it tends to support war and the loss of civil liberties. There is nothing better for them than to see people in full on fear mode. The BBC and their ilk are clever at what they do, but they are part of the problem.
On the contrary. The decent people of the world need to be outraged. If it happens.... put it out there, so we can all see the kind of sick fucks that run around the world today. With the twisted mentality these terrorists have, I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference to them whether they come out in the news or not. They get pissed off for some stupid god-forsaken reason.... they go out and exact their revenge on whoever happens to be standing in their way.
Let the press give these events their full coverage. Something's gonna have to give.... and something's gonna have to be done. Whatever the hell that is.
The old saying "if it bleeds it leads" is around for a reason
The press does give too much time to the tragedy, but it also largely whitewashes the historical context and the fact that the West is killing far more people in the Middle East either directly or indirectly than so called terrorists ever do. How many newspapers had a go at the leaders - most of whom are authoritarian murderers -over their hypocrisy for only now seemingly managing to find an emotion? When it's state sponsored terror we love to turn a blind eye. But a few Europeans and the world must stop spinning. It is galling in its hypocrisy.
It's the nature of news. Journalists are employed by organisations and are expected to deliver articles that reflect the stance of the paper/company etc. I don't think that they are an extension of the Government per say but rather an expression of a system. Even within papers there are often wildcards with interesting things to say, but if you think that a lot of alternative news media do not also have their own agenda, and an expected stance to start from when communicating to their subscribers, then you are mistaken. In fact many times alternative media will not tolerate deviation from the assumed narrative, and is nothing more than a huge commercialism of peoples gullibility and fears. Alex Jones and Infowars is a prime example of wearing bigger blinkers than the mainstream Shire Horses.
You can buy pasties anywhere, but then again you never know what gets put in them. Your Nan at least never charged you for the privilege of losing a tooth to her concrete shortcrust pastry.
A lot of people blame the press, but the fact is the press is just a reflection of what the public wants to know. Sometimes I see people talking like the press dictates public interest, and I think that's just so silly.
Without question, the press coverage of horrible events fuels crazy lone-wolf gunmen who want to go down in a blaze of glory and terrorists who want their actions to be widely covered to spread fear. There have been studies done that show that the media attention given to these assholes can encourage copycats who want that global notoriety. The problem is, that's what people want to know. If someone shoots up a school or a home-grown terrorist kills civilians, we want to know when, where, why and how. We want to know everything about the killer and what would cause a seemingly normal human being to commit such atrocities. We are curious by nature.
Speaking as someone who works in the press, I can tell you it's very competitive between news stations to get the scoop and provide the best info. If one station refused to cover bad events on moral grounds, people would just flock to another station to get the info and give them the ratings. If all news channels refused to give the info, people would flock to the internet.
And of course there's the other side's argument, where if every station came together and decided to ban covering these big tragic events or limit their coverage of them in some way, people would say "no that's censorship, we need to know all about these events and all about the perps so we can gain understanding into why someone does this, ect".
How can you say 'the fact is the press is just a reflection of what the public wants to know'. Really? Like the policies in the election are the ones that most matter to the public? Or take the stock market which is rammed down your throat every few minutes.....10% of the richest people are vested in that. So, why are the rest of us interested? I disagree strongly that the audience makes the news because the audience simply doesn't have the participation to make the agenda. Even something participatory like BBC's Question Time is a hoax as the audience is carefully vetted and the questions chosen accordingly.
Mainstream news is on the whole one way communication to scramble your nut and they do a really good job at doing that to people who are so busy trying to survive in a screwed up system that the crappy news is the only shot most get at any understanding of this world. Ordinary people have no stake in this system and if they did stories would be very different.
Extremists use the press and the media to there advantage, because we live in a media controlled
World, terrible and tragic events are all most immediately put on air TV internet radio, cove ridge
is given.! The people carrying out theses acts no there horrific acts will be giving air time, and
of course next day the press, imagine if we ignored theses acts no cove ridge what so ever.
Really think about it , without the media extremists would have no platform, so is the media is
to blame may well be. But because we want to no what's going we will never do this, as
the say the World is a stage, and we can see it live.!
It was US local CNN that had a count on the missing airplane last year. 'The plane has been missing 92 days' and still they were on about it with all these useless analysts. That was a terrible event too, but I think they use those kinds of events to ignore actual real shit going on in the world. They play it both ways. Either way, their ratings are tanking. They seldom want to talk about their government arming Isis or vetoing Palestine at the UN etc. It is against anything that might actually stimulate a braincell. Tonight they were getting serious about did we make a mistake not being in the hypocrite leader charade in Paris? Of course you guys would say so, hypocrisy is your call and duty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I say it because it's true. The fact is, the majority of people are not as interested in topics like politics, economics, science, ect. Sure, if there's a big story in one of those, people are interested in catching the headline, but they won't stay glued to the TV like they would with a terrorist attack or a school shooting. Those are just the facts. If you're going to disagree with that, we might as well be arguing about whether or not the sun appears every morning.
If people care about something, they'll pay attention to it. If they don't, they won't. Simple as that.
Our priorities as humans are pretty fucked up, but that's not the fault of the media.
I say they are not as interested because they are so overworked, poorly educated, and want to watch their favorite show. In turn that is a reflection on society. America has the poorest vacation laws, fewer labour rights, yet the news will sit there and tell you DOW Jones matters! It's absurd. It has zero connection with reality. Now stick on some terror? It is a sick game to rile up those who do not pay attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
I say it because it's true. The fact is, the majority of people are not as interested in topics like politics, economics, science, ect. Sure, if there's a big story in one of those, people are interested in catching the headline, but they won't stay glued to the TV like they would with a terrorist attack or a school shooting. Those are just the facts. If you're going to disagree with that, we might as well be arguing about whether or not the sun appears every morning.
The line seems fine here. Even the Israeli PM asking French Jews to move to Israel if they want to be safe was over played. When 200 are killed by similar minded people in Nigeria it barely makes the news and is a blurb in the world section of newspapers but when a few westerners get it all of a sudden its 24/7.
Even the different coverage of the two events must add fuel. Like we have a higher moral worth then they do.
And it just seems like these shit bags are winning when our society starts to change those very fundamental things that we say they are trying to erode. Are we not doing exactly what they want us to do. Cameras everywhere, soldiers in front of malls. Even in Canada the phrase "ever since 911" has been used for everything you can possibly think of in everyday life.
It many ways our societies are turning into over governed police states from the municipal level up because of them. Every freedom we fight for infringed by them even when they fail. Its why I think something drastic may have to be done but first we should try just cutting ourselves off from the middle east completely. Let the chips fall were they may.
I think Oil is the antichrist.;D
Well you're talking about institutional problems, not problems with the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The old saying is true, "if it bleeds, it leads".
But that is a lie as you ignore those that die through your own weaponry.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWell you're talking about institutional problems, not problems with the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The old saying is true, "if it bleeds, it leads".
everybody's been killing everybody since Cain & Abel. i can never get used to it nevertheless.
IMO- The media, press on cable & internet really comes across as a business for bias.
Too many adjectives in their stories; hoping to steer the masses in favor/opposition. Before I can decide to call a crime 'heinous' or not, they've already affixed it or justified it...
Anyone with the ability, organization and accounts are 'the media' now. It really has come that far. If anything it feels like network reporters are running to play catch up or the foil in the whole production of 'new' media. They wait for it to come to them with I reporters and any chump with a phone dodging Stop signs during a hurricane.
Obviously there is a proximity bias with all news. I'm Canadian. A mass shooting in Canada will carry more emotional attachment to me than a mass shooting in the States. A mass shooting in my home town will carry more emotional attachment to me than a mass shooting elsewhere in Canada, ect ect.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfBut that is a lie as you ignore those that die through your own weaponry.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanflickerWell you're talking about institutional problems, not problems with the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
The old saying is true, "if it bleeds, it leads".
That goes for everyone, with no exceptions.
Can't argue with that, I've seen the media take appalling stances on a bunch of issues over the last few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
Thirty or more years ago you used to have a much higher standard of journalism. But with the advent of cable/satellite news, the 24 hour news cycle and especially the internet signalling the beginning of the end of printed newspapers everything has changed. It's now all about ratings or clicks on the internet and rather than have a couple of dusty old professors providing expert context to news events the media want two talking heads screaming differing viewpoints/abuse at each other because that's what gets the ratings.
You mean a monopoly that was able to control a storyline but go on. I guess if ratings don't matter then you're still a big MSNBC support eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Cable so-called news outlets are totally agenda-driven. Question is whose Agenda?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I think of how America's so-called liberal media and the so-called fair and balanced FOX cable op-ed news basically gave a blackout to Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012. Ron Paul had a sellout ralley in Minneapolis-- the same day McCain accepted his nominee. And this wasnt news worthy?
Or In 2012, the Republican national committee was accused of changing rules which took delegates away from Ron Paul, ---giving them to Romeny; end result? I didn't hear any major news outlets speak on it.
Ron Paul was quoted about FOX: "they didn't want to hear the message. Maybe they're intimidated. Maybe they're frightened. Maybe they don't want to hear the truth. Who knows?"
Yet the mainstream media could have used this to show division in the Republican ranks- they didn't cover it either, wow...
Totally agenda driven when the Independent film @ the Sundance Film Festival in Utah higlighted a documentary titled, ‘Mitt’....and when I google it, yahoo it or go to FOX's website...mumm is the word.
Romney questioned how he was winning when his rallies drew 200 supporters while Ron Paul’s were drawing 20,000.
In the final moments of the film, Romney states to his staff what his campaign managers said to him: In some ways, we kind of had to steal the Republican nomination. Our party is Southern, evangelical and populist. And you’re Northern, and you’re Mormon, and you’re rich. And these do not match well with our party.”
CNN, MSNBC, FOX all seem to drive points that lead to subjective analysis, which usually is imbalanced, so people come away knowing one side of a story really friggin well, then dismiss the rebuttal because it was placed in a packaged labeled with a negative connotation: Liberal or Conservative...WTF...and this is what our press has come to?:eek:
CNN tonight all about stopping the latest Isis inspired prevented attack and blaming social media. Now why do they keep giving these things such coverage? It is almost inviting copy cat behaviour. The Isis attack will become the new school shooting at this rate. Have an iota of responsibility! Instead it's to let you know that the police state is valid and social media.....we've gotta have all of that now just in case. It just seems to read from a script where you know the next lines weeks in advance because they spell it out to you.
One would hope so as school shootings are DOWN miles :vd:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
So, now you have a new manufactured fear.....entirely from your own government policy and propaganda. Your elite must be well pleased, but they are despicable as we know how they make the agenda. Job well done, or utter bullshit. I tend to side against people who get paid from taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongOne would hope so as school shootings are DOWN miles :vd:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
As per usual, a bunch of irrelevant or straw man arguments. Go and do something constructive with your life.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongYou mean a monopoly that was able to control a storyline but go on. I guess if ratings don't matter then you're still a big MSNBC support eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
What do you make of NBC's doctoring of the George Zimmerman 911 call that made Zimmerman seem racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
That was done by NBC...mainstream news. And that's one of MANY times NBC has slanted a story, but hey you're a wizen bleeding heart so you....you're ALWAYS right aren't you?
Its the Taste-makers. Telling you what to feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
All-day-all-night. 24-sev...365...Quote:
Originally Posted by brocktonblockbustIts the Taste-makers. Telling you what to feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTrae
Bottom line: Giving lots of press to terrible events is a good thing, IMO. We can't be ostriches with our heads in the sand while atrocities are becoming a daily way of life. We need to be horrified, indignant, and angry. Maybe someday something will be done. What? I don't know. If I did, I'd be running for government office.
But I agree that the press needs to stick to reporting the news, not making opinions on it. That's what editorial pages are for. Years ago there was a local clash between university students and police, and some students ended up getting hit with batons and stuff like that. A local paper splashed the headline "Police Brutality". Who the hell are they to pass judgment on an event? Just report the facts and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Well said.