The Media Hypocrisy
 

There are recent posts in other threads which suggested that the media limit their coverage of mass shootings so that the shooter doesn't become glorified and "set a new high score" for others to top. This has been proposed at least going back to 2015 (Newsweek), yet the media has still not changed their reporting style.

A video was posted which opened with a suggestion that perhaps the government should impose limitations on the press around mass shootings, and immediately there was an uproar about infringing on the first amendment rights of the media.

Here is a link to the original video, "How to Stop The Media From Inspiring Killers", in its entirety. Don't make the same mistake that many in the media and others did and only watch some of the video-watch the entire video, it is only 4 minutes and 41 seconds long. And to be transparent, the host is with the NRA, but even if you disagree with the NRA, you should still watch this video to see how quickly the media is ready to rush to judge, condemn and erroneously report without all of the facts. Yes, facts DO matter.

The uproar and subsequent inflammatory tweets that followed were clearly based upon approximately the first 2 minutes and 48 seconds of the 4 minute 41 second video. The host clearly and unequivocally states at 3 minutes and 5 seconds that "hearing him advocate to limit anyone's first amendment rights should anger you." And at 3 minutes 43 seconds he vehemently disagrees with the government infringing on the media's first amendment rights just as he vehemently opposes the government from infringing upon the second amendment rights. "The constitution is the constitution, it is not an ala carte menu. All the amendments need to be respected to the same standard" (Colion Noir).

Here is the follow-up video (about 10 minutes long) (link) which covers the uproar, and shows various tweets of people including the media (such as CNN) who were ready to state their opinions without even having viewed the entire content (in other words, to them FACTS DID NOT MATTER).

It would therefore appear that the media is going to continue to "glorify" these monsters, giving them the notoriety they seek, because of the media's first amendment right to do so. Don't touch the first amendment, but by all means erase the second. Perhaps David Hogg should call for a boycott of the media, since the media is throwing gasoline on the fire, potentially at the expense of the lives of more children.

The media want to shape public opinion so they selectively and with their slant publicize various events.

The media vilifies these shooters. It does not glorify them.

Society has gotten to the point where everybody has a right, but nobody has a responsibility. Sad....for the first time in my life, I am glad I am getting old.

Speaking logically, I would concur. However the perspective of these monsters is much different. They see "the glory" in obtaining fame, getting the "high score", heck there are those who received love letters. Interviews with the shooters that have been arrested speak specifically to the fame and score that they are trying to get/beat.

So when people question what we can do now, why is the media not stepping up to the plate and helping by minimizing the sensationalism? Suicides have been "downplayed" by the media when it was shown that it could help by doing so, so they have shown it is possible. They do not need a change in law to do so, they can self minimize. You could therefore argue that the media, by it own actions, are a contributory affect encouraging these shooters. Downplaying the reporting may not stop all shootings, but studies indicate that it may contribute. If that contribution means one less shooting, aren't the lives of those school kids and teachers (and the impact to their families) worth it?

My opinion is that if they eliminate the sensationalism, it impacts their ability to continue to push their agenda on eliminating the second amendment, by using the shootings to condemn the NRA. As the host of the videos pointed out, they hide behind the first amendment to attack the second, even at the cost of more children's lives.

How ironic is that?

I would only change "everybody" and"nobody" with "many people", but your point is well taken!

Unfortunately " the media " provides what society wants. " The media " for the most part is composed of for profit corporations which rely on high ratings to attract advertising dollars. Advertising dollars for the most part come from the advertising budgets of other for profit corporations. Society in general insists on sensationalism and the more sensational, the higher the ratings. Altruism pays no part what so ever in this cycle. Where do you start to disassemble same ? Since the days of " the Roman Circus " the public gets want it wants. It is not the guns. It is not the media. It is not the legal system. All responsibility rests directly on the shoulders of the public which comprises society. No " fix " is possible in the absence of an authoritarian government which directly controls all the facets and instrumentalities of society. Personally, democracy and capitalism remain my choices despite all their warts. Just a few random thoughts on my part, and I guess the point is, society will eventually decide on a course of action, or inaction, to address the problem. That is a messy process and is taking place under our noses as the debate goes on.

Agreed. How many times have you heard, "And Channel _X_ was first on the scene and the first to bring you this report."?

Well said! There is a price we pay for the freedoms that we enjoy, and I too prefer the warts than to have an authoritarian government. I appreciate the thoughtful comments.

Yep! :thumbup:

How student journalists are telling their own story after Parkland shooting - YouTube

There are journalists who show quite a bit of compassion for the people they are interviewing. Steve Hartman is one of the best.

good link
The parkland students seem to come out of central casting. They carry themselves as if they were 10 years older.

Yep.

The intelligence and ability to articulately express themselves, along with the many polls and articles I've seen...gives me a lot of hope in most of our younger generation. :thumbup:


The data are in: Young people are definitely less racist than old people — Quartz

goo to Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis - The Washington Post and look for the number of shootings since 1999

I thought they would have doubled every year. The media doesn't make that clear. I wonder how many plots were thwarted by teachers, parents, friends, ministers.....

Sad to say.........
 

Sad to say, the motto of the media appears to be "If it bleeds, it leads."

Sensationalism used to sell newspapers. Now it attracts TV viewers.

The news agencies whip it up for all its worth to get and keep an audience.

I found this graph at your Washington Post link.

While it certainly hasn't 'doubled' each year...there IS a disturbing trend.

And admittedly, a lot of the statistics are determined...by what is defined and included as a 'mass shooting.' :shrug:

More than 50 years of U.S. mass shootings in the United States - Washington Post

I can't get the post or the times for free.

Copy the address, open a 'New Private Window' (upper right in Windows 10), paste it in the address bar of the private window and it will take you to the article...without the annoying ad trying to make you sign up.

It's worked for any site that I've run across so far. :thumbup:

I'm using win 8 and chrome---it didn't work---it would be great to get the times and the post

Does yours allow you to open a private window?

I used Vista (I know, I know...:D ) until just recently...and even it had that function. :shrug:

It looks like this.

not getting it---are you using chrome?

No, I'm using Firefox.

In Chrome I think it's called an 'incognito window.'

It should work the same way though. :shrug:


Browse in private - Computer - Google Chrome Help


I hope it works for you, as it's pretty schweet to be able to read entire articles without the site blocking them...and demanding I subscribe. :mad:

Is it exploiting or are they giving us what we want? Would we accept a headline that 12 people were murdered without any other details? I don’t think so.

Yep...you are absolutely correct. :thumbup:

I don't think it's a matter of just reporting the news. It's also the volume of news. Especially with cable and the internet. Something big happens and it's front page all over the internet or cable news within minutes, from hundreds of different sources. In the "Good "Ol Days" you would get your news from the Evening News or the afternoon paper. Now you can't turn on, log on or look at any digital device without having every tragic story in your face for hours if not days. Even if it's a statistical rarity, the aggressive manner in which the media reports would lead people to believe some issues are much bigger than they really are.

So true! One thing happens and that is all you hear about for the next 24 hrs, then it is gone and some other sensational item is the BREAKING NEWS.

We get around this by buying a package with international news, real news about what is happening around the world in places we never hear about. But certainly, not for everyone, just suits us. Reuters does an excellent new site, as does the BBC.

We were living and working abroad for several years and got used to real news, not just sensationalized news.

Is it the media or viewers or readers demands!?

We need "Red Meat" every day to incite strong emotions. Emotion , not facts is what sells most things.

…//////

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you look at a story about someone who was struck by lightning the [internet software?] that works in the background will give you another story about someone getting struck by lightning the same way that if you look at travel sites you get a lot of travel site advertisements. Now here's where it gets dicey. If you not only get hits about lightning you might also get hits that says that lightning is due to global warming. Then you get hits on global warming real science or opinion. The software in the background sees that you are more likely to read those stories that are scientific. They know a lot about you.

So the viewer thinks that a lot of the news is about scientific global warning and getting hit by lightning. If you are getting your news from facebook you may be getting fake news from a source outside of the country.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we are choosing what we want to read and honorable and dishonorable sources giving us what we want. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I watch a bit of youtube and youtube suggests what I would like to view. So I get a lot of hits on the presidents, one in particular, Joni Mitchel and actor interviews.

When in doubt follow the money. The media has the incentive to get us to click their articles, that's how they get paid. With so many media sources out there how do they get us to click? By coming up with sensationalistic titles and writing more sensational content than their competitors.