[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by tomwed

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.....

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.'

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

152 shootings

In the 50 years before the Texas tower shooting, there were just 25 public mass shootings in which four or more people were killed, according to author and criminologist Grant Duwe. Since then, the number has risen dramatically, and many of the deadliest shootings have occurred within the past few years.

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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.'

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.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by tomwed

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.

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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.

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

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by tomwed

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... ) until just recently...and even it had that function.

It looks like this.

[tomwed]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Does yours allow you to open a private window?

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

It looks like this.

not getting it---are you using chrome?

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by tomwed

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.


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.

[Fredman]

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.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Fredman

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.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Fredman

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.

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.

[Madelaine Amee]

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.

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

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.

Is it the media or viewers or readers demands!?

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by jebartle

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.

[graciegirl]

…//////

[tomwed]

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.