|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 11:50:26 GMT -6
Ha! Since when? If you don't like the news, just reign in the media. Ostrich, meet sand. I know you're not advocating legal restrictions on the press, but it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare. You missed our point. (Me and Dot's) We think that the hyper coverage of these events helps to breed more events. What motivates school shooters? Revenge, bullying, video games, mental illness... Who the hell knows. Getting a big splash in the press seemed to be part of the motivation for at least the Columbine killers. I do not want to censor the media. Quite the opposite. Therefore, I don't even have the slightest idea what this line means: "it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare." Maybe you can explain. Mass shootings are big news whether we want them to be or not. What part of Newtown was "overdone", for example? Columbine?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 16, 2014 11:52:39 GMT -6
Ha! Since when? If you don't like the news, just reign in the media. Ostrich, meet sand. I know you're not advocating legal restrictions on the press, but it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare. You missed our point. (Me and Dot's) We think that the hyper coverage of these events helps to breed more events. This morning's ABC early news show (4:00-4:30 a.m. when we catch it) was a prime example of coverage a bit more restrained than after Newtown but still excessive. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON to air segments of the 911 calls in these situations. The desperation in callers' voices is distressing and ghoulishly displays what ought to be private communications. It's not as though we can't imagine that the tenor of such calls is frantic. We don't need to know from a student interview that the shooter ran into a fellow student nearly knocking her down as he dashed toward the gym. She said she told him to be more careful, and he replied that he was sorry. That is distasteful irony and then some. We also don't need to know that he may have warned friends to avoid the gym. There's a new item for the next perp's to-do list: Don't forget to warn friends. At least, we've made marginal improvements with the media agreement to say "the shooter" rather than repeatedly naming the perpetrator if not a juvenile. That's a start toward more sensitive reporting but barely. Much more restraint should be exercised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 11:59:03 GMT -6
it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare. I'm done for the day, so I'll cut to the chase. You must mean the word "equate" as a stand in for "primary cause." That is not my position. I recognize that these shootings are caused by a whole slew of factors many of which are not in society's control. I also do not think that ready gun availability is a primary cause. The primary cause is a failure of "normal" checks in the shooter's brain that permits him to plan and accomplish a horrific crime. His motivations might be: A. out of his control: mental illness, psychosis, organic brain defect. B. societal: Movies, video games, previous incidents, C. external: bullying, conflict escalation, jealousy, D. internal: lack of morality from truly crappy parenting or innate immorality and conscious pathological anti-social behavior that is wired in no matter how well he was parented. The shooter's tools are guns and bombs. Probably already illegal. His use of them certainly is. Who the hell knows what goes on in his mind? All I am saying is that press coverage might be a factor. Your use of the word "equate" is probably overstated, even though I have no idea what you actually meant. J
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 12:04:37 GMT -6
You missed our point. (Me and Dot's) We think that the hyper coverage of these events helps to breed more events. What motivates school shooters? Revenge, bullying, video games, mental illness... Who the hell knows. Getting a big splash in the press seemed to be part of the motivation for at least the Columbine killers. I do not want to censor the media. Quite the opposite. Therefore, I don't even have the slightest idea what this line means: "it's not to your credit to equate the murder of children in schools with gossip column fare." Maybe you can explain. Mass shootings are big news whether we want them to be or not. What part of Newtown was "overdone", for example? Columbine? I would certainly not censor it, but I think that Rolling Stone arguably over-glamorized Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with their coverage. Who knows if this will motivate another disturbed kid? I think it might. Nothing to do about it if it does. J
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 16, 2014 12:07:24 GMT -6
Mass shootings are big news whether we want them to be or not. What part of Newtown was "overdone", for example? Columbine? You must not have seen much of the Newtown coverage. Reporters were practically climbing over each other to snag interviews with siblings of the victims and even in some cases classmates. It was really sad to see how many parents grabbed at their kid's chance to get some tv fame. If they hadn't more sense than to allow their six or seven-year-old to talk tearfully on camera about how scary it was, broadcast journalism needs to have the basic decency not to ask to put on air schoolkids telling how they felt while it was happening. As if we can't figure that out for ourselves, honestly! The latest-development reportage was appalling in its degree of detail, not to mention that numerous corrections were later issued when the scramble to be first on air with the latest sordid detail produced erroneous reportage. Newtown coverage in its zeal had all the earmarks of Jerry Springer.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 12:13:59 GMT -6
A. out of his control: mental illness, psychosis, organic brain defect. B. societal: Movies, video games, previous incidents, C. external: bullying, conflict escalation, jealousy, D. internal: lack of morality from truly crappy parenting or innate immorality and conscious pathological anti-social behavior that is wired in no matter how well he was parented. The shooter's tools are guns and bombs. Probably already illegal. His use of them certainly is. Who the hell knows what goes on in his mind? All I am saying is that press coverage might be a factor. Your use of the word "equate" is probably overstated, even though I have no idea what you actually meant. J All these things occur in other societies which more tightly control guns and ammunition. Their rates of mass shooting (and shootings in general) is much, much lower than ours. Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 12:15:09 GMT -6
Mass shootings are big news whether we want them to be or not. What part of Newtown was "overdone", for example? Columbine? You must not have seen much of the Newtown coverage. Reporters were practically climbing over each other to snag interviews with siblings of the victims and even in some cases classmates. It was really sad to see how many parents grabbed at their kid's chance to get some tv fame. If they hadn't more sense than to allow their six or seven-year-old to talk tearfully on camera about how scary it was, broadcast journalism needs to have the basic decency not to ask to put on air schoolkids telling how they felt while it was happening. As if we can't figure that out for ourselves, honestly! The latest-development reportage was appalling in its degree of detail, not to mention that numerous corrections were later issued when the scramble to be first on air with the latest sordid detail produced erroneous reportage. Newtown coverage in its zeal had all the hallmarks of Jerry Springer. No, I didn't. Nor did most people, honestly. The best form of media control is turning off the set. TV is about the worst place I can imagine to get news, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 12:16:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Jan 16, 2014 12:38:53 GMT -6
Nope, having had some long ago training in responsible journalism, I heartily disagree that turning off the tv will solve the problem Trout and I are describing. It solves the problem for the person with the discernment to determine that it's distasteful hyper-coverage, but that does nothing to discourage the troubled future perpetrator who hasn't that good sense or, in the case of juveniles, appropriate parental supervision and restraint.
Both print and broadcast journalism need to rein themselves in significantly out of concern that they're egging on the mentally unstable and the inadequately parented juvenile.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 16, 2014 12:53:48 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 14:51:17 GMT -6
A. out of his control: mental illness, psychosis, organic brain defect. B. societal: Movies, video games, previous incidents, C. external: bullying, conflict escalation, jealousy, D. internal: lack of morality from truly crappy parenting or innate immorality and conscious pathological anti-social behavior that is wired in no matter how well he was parented. The shooter's tools are guns and bombs. Probably already illegal. His use of them certainly is. Who the hell knows what goes on in his mind? All I am saying is that press coverage might be a factor. Your use of the word "equate" is probably overstated, even though I have no idea what you actually meant. J All these things occur in other societies which more tightly control guns and ammunition. Their rates of mass shooting (and shootings in general) is much, much lower than ours. Please explain. Good question. I'll generally explain and then maybe we can talk about the details in specific countries if you have some in mind. Some of the factors that might cause our gun homicide rates to be higher than others are: * historically violent culture * very non-homogeneous large population * readily accessible weapons * poverty in general * robust illegal drug economy * substantially free society * uniquely huge apatite for violent entertainment * I'm sure that you can think of other factors that make the USA somewhat more violent than some other countries. Are you really suggesting that countries with relatively low homicide rates are primarily distinguished from the US by tighter gun and ammo controls? That might be one of the reasons for a lower homicide by gun rate, but I doubt that it is the primary reason. I suspect that cultural bias toward non-violence is a bigger factor in most relatively safer nations. Here is one piece of evidence: You are no doubt aware that the homicide rate in the USA has been in decline since the the 60s and probably has been in decline since the country was founded. www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863Why the decline? I doubt that is has to do with gun control since guns and ammo are readily available legally or illegally and always have been in the USA. My guess is that some of the other social factors are driving the homicide rate down. This is not a simple issue and demands more than simplistic solutions. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 17, 2014 15:51:09 GMT -6
All these things occur in other societies which more tightly control guns and ammunition. Their rates of mass shooting (and shootings in general) is much, much lower than ours. Please explain. Good question. I'll generally explain and then maybe we can talk about the details in specific countries if you have some in mind. Some of the factors that might cause our gun homicide rates to be higher than others are: * historically violent culture * very non-homogeneous large population * readily accessible weapons * poverty in general * robust illegal drug economy * substantially free society * uniquely huge apatite for violent entertainment * I'm sure that you can think of other factors that make the USA somewhat more violent than some other countries. Are you really suggesting that countries with relatively low homicide rates are primarily distinguished from the US by tighter gun and ammo controls? That might be one of the reasons for a lower homicide by gun rate, but I doubt that it is the primary reason. I suspect that cultural bias toward non-violence is a bigger factor in most relatively safer nations. No, I am suggesting that countries with relatively low homicide rates are significantly distinguished from the US by tighter gun and ammo controls. Further, I am suggesting that bias toward a non-violent culture is learned behavior, and that one of the lessons that other nations have learned better than we have is that the number of total weapons in the system is a numerator in the equation of violence that no denominator can fully wipe out. Here is one piece of evidence: You are no doubt aware that the homicide rate in the USA has been in decline since the the 60s and probably has been in decline since the country was founded. www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863Why the decline? I doubt that is has to do with gun control since guns and ammo are readily available legally or illegally and always have been in the USA. My guess is that some of the other social factors are driving the homicide rate down. You owe it to yourself to pick up a copy of Freakonomics. The authors make a fairly compelling case that the proximate cause of decreasing violence in the early 1990's was the legalization of abortion. While they make no attempts at a moral case, their data clearly demonstrate the result of the post-1973 generation turning 18. IIRC, I was pretty uncomfortable with it when I first read it, as my pro-life bona fides were still pretty good at the time and the utilitarian argument is (still) not one that I would prefer. This is not a simple issue and demands more than simplistic solutions. Exactly. The anemic not-even-half-measures that have constituted our societal attempts at gun control are predictably impotent, and more than canceled out by deliberate and persistent attempts to increase the gun supply. Did you read the link to the Arizona article. They are basically making it illegal to decrease the gun supply! Dollars to doughnuts the bill sponsors have an unshakable faith in supply-side economics, but supply side societal violence? That's just crazy talk...
|
|
|
Post by identityissues8 on Jan 19, 2014 3:52:04 GMT -6
It is undeniable fact that countries with tighter control of weapons and ammunition have fewer shootings of this nature. The sort of regulation that is necessary would be of the type that would dramatically and significantly reduce the number of guns in public circulation, control availability of ammunition and punish failure to secure one's weapon as a felony. Yep. Here in Australia, since our current gun laws were introduced in 1996 there has not been a massacre with a gun. We are a shining example of gun control working. Yep. Because they are also weapons. *Roll eyes*
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 19, 2014 6:45:15 GMT -6
It is undeniable fact that countries with tighter control of weapons and ammunition have fewer shootings of this nature. The sort of regulation that is necessary would be of the type that would dramatically and significantly reduce the number of guns in public circulation, control availability of ammunition and punish failure to secure one's weapon as a felony. Yep. Here in Australia, since our current gun laws were introduced in 1996 there has not been a massacre with a gun. We are a shining example of gun control working. Yep. Because they are also weapons. *Roll eyes* Welcome to the forum, Issues. We just recently moved over to pro-boards, but even in our former state, I can't recall a member from Oz. I am about to jump on a plane heading for warmer climes. With any luck I'll be able to read up a bit on Australian gun laws on my way down. Switzerland, which often gets brought up by gun nuts here as an example of unfettered gun rights, is another success story. Ammunition is tightly regulated, to be used for training at militia centers and in the national defense only.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 19, 2014 6:46:46 GMT -6
There are stupid video games on the market (e.g. GTA), but these are played in other countries without the same sort of mass shootings that we have here. The Blame the Television crowd needs to do their homework.
|
|