Anyone else fed up with the media coverage of the Newtown shootings?

[Beefnot]

That used to describe the behavior of the media elite, but that has changed in the last 4 to 5 years, when things have become agenda-driven. On the other side of the coin are the major scandals that COULD have boosted ratings, but the media swept them under the rug because they ran counter to their agenda. I am thinking particularly of Fast and Furious and Benghazi. The New York Times omsbudsman even critiicized her own newspaper for sweeping Benghazi under the rug.

It is also interesting in watching the CNN Europe and BBC coverage, they constantly harp about gun control, but I don't think I have seen either mention the spate of mass stabbings of students that have been occuring recently at schools in Communist China. One would normally see a relationship between those events until you realize that mentioning the stabbings would run counter to their gun control agenda.

Benghazi in particular is of little interest to the average person. I am very into politics and I find it overhyped by a small contingent with an agenda. Yawn. Fast and Furious, I will grant you, should be receiving more play, but again it is being over politicized when it was a program begun in the prior administration and there has been little interest shown by the witch hunters in bringing them in for questioning.

As for stabbings in other countries, it is sad, but it feels remote to me. This latest tragedy shocks the conscience of every American and regardless of where one stands on gun control, we were lapping up the media coverage. That is why the media covers things, because it sells. You really have to be reaching for conspiracy in order to cynically question why something as sensational as this tragedy gets the publicity that it does.

 

[JanT]

The media has been out of control for many years now. True, honest journalism died in 2008. It is sad to see what is has turned into. I majored in journalism and cannot believe the state that profession is in today. I'm glad I'm not doing it anymore.

 

[ricoba]

The media has been out of control for many years now. True, honest journalism died in 2008. It is sad to see what is has turned into. I majored in journalism and cannot believe the state that profession is in today. I'm glad I'm not doing it anymore.

I am curious as to your date of 2008 for the death of journalism. What are you referring to? Not trying to stir any pot, just curious about the specific date.

 

[Beefnot]

I am curious as to your date of 2008 for the death of journalism. What are you referring to? Not trying to stir any pot, just curious about the specific date.

C'mon, you know what she is referring to. Rhymes with Osama. Or a drama. Or yo mama...

 

[Carolinian]

Benghazi in particular is of little interest to the average person. I am very into politics and I find it overhyped by a small contingent with an agenda. Yawn. Fast and Furious, I will grant you, should be receiving more play, but again it is being over politicized when it was a program begun in the prior administration and there has been little interest shown by the witch hunters in bringing them in for questioning.

As for stabbings in other countries, it is sad, but it feels remote to me. This latest tragedy shocks the conscience of every American and regardless of where one stands on gun control, we were lapping up the media coverage. That is why the media covers things, because it sells. You really have to be reaching for conspiracy in order to cynically question why something as sensational as this tragedy gets the publicity that it does.

Clearly the lack of coverage impacts your knowledge. Fast and Furioius is a very different program from ''Wide Receiver'' of the past, and it is those very differences that make it so objectionable.

Many would disagree with you on Benghazi, among them Pat Cadell, former pollster to Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden. And also the New York Times own omsbudsman.

 

[Carolinian]

I am curious as to your date of 2008 for the death of journalism. What are you referring to? Not trying to stir any pot, just curious about the specific date.

You might also look up the JournoList scandal. You will have to find that on the internet, as the media really swept that one under the rug. For those who smuggly accuse others of ''conspiracy theories'', that was the real smoking gun that shut them up. JournoList is now shut down, but it is virtually certain that it has a successor and it is likely they are more careful to see that it is not exposed.

 

[ricoba]

C'mon, you know what she is referring to. Rhymes with Osama. Or a drama. Or yo mama...

You might also look up the JournoList scandal. You will have to find that on the internet, as the media really swept that one under the rug. For those who smuggly accuse others of ''conspiracy theories'', that was the real smoking gun that shut them up. JournoList is now shut down, but it is virtually certain that it has a successor and it is likely they are more careful to see that it is not exposed.

Sorry, but I really was and still am clueless until the OP signifies what killed journalism in 2008? I think y'all are probably on the right path, but I guess I don't deal too well with the subtle and cryptic!

BTW, to add weight to Doug's original post, tonight I see Yahoo News/AP are reporting the insights and wisdom of the shooters hair stylists! I think this pretty much confirms what Doug was pointing out in the OP.

 

[JanT]

Rick,

I do not want this to go in a direction it shouldn't. Other's assessments of what I meant are accurate. I was deeply involved with the media in 2008 and now I'm not. That pretty much sums things up.

Jan

I am curious as to your date of 2008 for the death of journalism. What are you referring to? Not trying to stir any pot, just curious about the specific date.

 

[dougp26364]

Doug, I think this is the curse of the 24/7 news cycle we now live in.

I don't think you are too much younger than me, but I remember the days when we only had the three networks, the radio and newspapers and they didn't do 24 hours per day broadcasting.

I think it's really a symptom of the perceived need by the talking TV heads to fill airtime all the time. Besides, if people can't get it on TV, they will get the info online.

While it's great for us to get instant feedback on lots of things of interest, it's also the curse of the need for instant news that causes the reporters to overstep the bounds of common sense and courtesy. At least I think this may be part of the issue.

Walter Conkrite might have been a liberal but you'd have never known it from his news reporting. He reported the news and left the editorial out of it.

Turner News Network, or whatever Ted Turner called it, is the WORST thing that's happend in my lifetime IMHO. 24/7 news isn't news. It's 24/7 OP/ED.

 

[ronparise]

lets look at the flip side of this, Imagine that the media wasnt covering it 24/7 like they are.. Perhaps just a mention on the back page of the newspapers and a minute or so on the evening news, (one night, no follow up)

Now would that change anything? I mean...any less dead kids?

I think not


Speaking for liberals everywhere, I dont see any liberal media bias. I just dont see it. I long for someone to get even a little close to some real liberal ideas on the tube. What you see in so called liberal media is a presentation of the facts followed by a center, or maybe slightly left of center commentary, but its always clear where the facts end and the commentary begins

That isnt to say however, that there is no bias in the news. The news media are all owned by corporate giants, and the bias we see is to promote their best interest. Im afraid they are winning, We have reached the tipping point and we are on a fast track to becoming an Oligarchy. No longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but rather a government of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations. No we dont have a liberal media bias. The bias is in favor of corporate control of our lives..long live the Koch brothers.

That this tragic event is getting the coverage that it is , offers some small hope for the people. Its clear that most of us dont think its a good thing that everyone be carrying a gun. Most of us think that there should be at least as involved a regulatory and licensing structure around guns as there is around cars. Hopefully this tragedy will move us a little closer to that goal, or at least get us talking about it. Gun control,, Not gun bans

 

[SueDonJ]

lets look at the flip side of this, Imagine that the media wasnt covering it 24/7 like they are.. Perhaps just a mention on the back page of the newspapers and a minute or so on the evening news, (one night, no follow up)

Now would that change anything? I mean...any less dead kids?

I think not ...

And, would we be any less horrified by the incident, any less apt to engage in a discussion to find a solution to the ever-growing problem? Of course not!

Thanks, Ron. i've been trying to figure out how to say that I don't know how we can blame the media for "inciting" this nationwide conversation about gun violence. The incident itself inspires the discussion, and thank god for that!

Reading all these posts it's pretty obvious who is left-leaning and who is right, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is also nothing wrong, IMO, with a major media outlet being either left- or right-leaning, as long as we understand that the bias exists. It's absurd to think that there are people out there watching/listening to these outlets who don't understand that. You watch what you want, I'll watch what I want. If you want to scream at me that my channel leans a certain way, I'll completely agree with you. That's why I watch it, because generally it presents the slant that I'm most interested in hearing. But it doesn't mean that I ignore all the other slants.

I like the 24/7 channels. I tolerate the ridiculous filler material. And I agree, there are lines that just shouldn't be crossed. For example, I abhor when the central characters in a news story are taken advantage of during their most vulnerable periods by the reporters, and I think that sticking microphones in the faces of the children who were witnesses the other day is among the most irresponsible so-called "journalism" efforts I've ever seen. But ranting and raving about the media outlets doing just that in order to "further their agenda" is useless. Write to your news stations if something specific bothers you. There's no guarantee that it will help, but it definitely won't contribute to uncivil discourse.

 

[ace2000]

Look folks, the reason the media chooses to cover these incidents in such detail is due to the exact same reason that someone decided to start this thread... And that is we, as a society, are interested in this story. And because we're interested in the story, we are now discussing the media coverage of the story. If we really want the story to go away, why are we still talking about it?

The problem is us.

 

[Ridewithme38]

The problem is us.

You mean the same people that watch reality shows like 'Jersey Shore' or 'the real housewives' are the problem.......Those that create celebrity from catastrophe's like J-wow or Snookie....That's not all of us

This is why i mentioned in a previous thread, how the 'they have other ways to pacify us' watch 'the real housewives' or 'bridezillas' for more then 10 minutes and i believe the scientific term for what is left is 'brain dead', i'm pretty sure you are unable to legally sign a contract for 36hrs

 

[pianodinosaur]

I think the press coverage degenerated into rancorous name calling far more quickly than our now closed thread.

 

[Beefnot]

I think the press coverage degenerated into rancorous name calling far more quickly than our now closed thread.

I must have missed that. What name calling are you referring to?

AN ASIDE: What is that dadburn photo in your signature? That thing has always creeped me out.

 

[ricoba]

Walter Conkrite might have been a liberal but you'd have never known it from his news reporting. He reported the news and left the editorial out of it.

Turner News Network, or whatever Ted Turner called it, is the WORST thing that's happend in my lifetime IMHO. 24/7 news isn't news. It's 24/7 OP/ED.

I grew up watching old Walter almost every night. In fact for awhile if someone asked what my favorite show was I'd say the CBS Evening News. Yet, in spite of that I turned out pretty conservative, because as you said, you didn't really know Cronkite's politics from the news broadcast.

As for CNN, I think even though they invented the 24 hour news cycle they seem to be floundering now as to what they really are. Fox fills the void on the right and MSNBC "leans forward" as they put it, but CNN can't make up its mind. Perhaps if they just were a news station without OP/ED shows at all they could fill a void for folks who just want to know the facts without opinion.

Back to your OP. I commented on it in my earlier post, but I just can't get over the stupidity of the AP and Yahoo News "reporting" about Lanza's hair stylists opinion about him. What's next? Is someone going to report on the plumbers or the mechanics take on his psyche? This is just absurdity gussied up to look like "news". I think old Walter must be rolling over in his grave.

 

[Carolinian]

Just to take one obvious issue that clearly shows a lack of balance in the media is to look at the Global Warming theory. The US media elite essentially reports only one side of it, and tries to pass that off as fact. There are a handful of exceptions that cover both sides like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily. In some other countries, notably the UK, you get a more balanced presentation. Much of the print media covers both sides, while in the electronic media, the BBC is clearly in the Warmist camp while some of the smaller TV outlets give coverage to both sides.

lets look at the flip side of this, Imagine that the media wasnt covering it 24/7 like they are.. Perhaps just a mention on the back page of the newspapers and a minute or so on the evening news, (one night, no follow up)

Now would that change anything? I mean...any less dead kids?

I think not


Speaking for liberals everywhere, I dont see any liberal media bias. I just dont see it. I long for someone to get even a little close to some real liberal ideas on the tube. What you see in so called liberal media is a presentation of the facts followed by a center, or maybe slightly left of center commentary, but its always clear where the facts end and the commentary begins

That isnt to say however, that there is no bias in the news. The news media are all owned by corporate giants, and the bias we see is to promote their best interest. Im afraid they are winning, We have reached the tipping point and we are on a fast track to becoming an Oligarchy. No longer a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but rather a government of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations. No we dont have a liberal media bias. The bias is in favor of corporate control of our lives..long live the Koch brothers.

That this tragic event is getting the coverage that it is , offers some small hope for the people. Its clear that most of us dont think its a good thing that everyone be carrying a gun. Most of us think that there should be at least as involved a regulatory and licensing structure around guns as there is around cars. Hopefully this tragedy will move us a little closer to that goal, or at least get us talking about it. Gun control,, Not gun bans

And a question to you gun nuts out there....Do you really want a nut job like me to have a gun.? I firmly believe that the only reason to own a gun is to kill someone. Arent you just a little concerned that if I buy a gun today, someone (perhaps you) will be dead tomorrow...

 

[dougp26364]

When I started this thread I really wasn't interested in liberal or conservative bias. Just that the news media can't report a story without attempting to seek out every single gory detail. I don't need to know the hair dressers opinion of the shooter. I don't need to know the bar patrons opinion of the mother. I don't need to know what the school nurse witnessed as she was led through the carnage of children shot dead at close range.

I never said the story should be relegated to the back page either. The story is news. It has to be reported. A little restraint would be nice but, then they'd all have to show restraint because they'd lose ratings to the other stations.

The comment was made that the problem is us. I tend to agree. How many times have we seen traffic slow down to a crawl passing a wreck because people have to look? Society apparently wants to stare straight into the headlights of the sensationalized news story. So much so that our news media now jumps to conclusions and reports it as fact before verifying the validity of their information.

I am truely disgusted and disturbed.

I do hold one belief and that is that the news media should never make famous the killers name. I believe they should referred to as the shooter and no names used. Mental illness is a strange thing and by repreatedly mentioning the killers name it could be we're encouraging others. Teenage suicides aren't even released in the news media because of the belief (I believe it's been proven) that those who had been contemplating suicide become copy cat suicides. I believe the same can be said for making mass murders famous. I believe when they report there has never been a worse crime, some mentally ill person will try to figure out how to kill even more and become more famous. The BTK killers pride was such that police were eventually able to bait him into making mistakes that led to his capture all these years later.

They talk about ways to stop this madness. I think one way is to slow down on all the darn details. Remove the killers name and stop making them famous. It's not a complete solution but really, I don't need to have them report every single detail, including attempting to get an eye witness to recount what the body count of 6 year old children looked like as she walked through the aftermath of the shooting.

It's not a liberal of conservative thing. It's a human thing.

 

[Kal]

..AN ASIDE: What is that dadburn photo in your signature? That thing has always creeped me out.

It looks like an infected, oozing scab.

 

[BobDE]

I guess that you can pretty much guess how old a person is by their comments. LOL

Yes I remember when news was THE NEWS. Walter Conkrite was my hero. Told it like it was. And yes, it was in black and white.

But things have changed for sure. And I am sure that the audience is also partly to blame.

But the networks have made the biggest changes. IMO the speed of getting the story gets first priority. Then the agenda of the network is added. And the facts are adjusted later.

This particular story has changed so many times, I am not even sure of the facts.

But the other bad thing is the internet. Regular people throwing their opinions in and adjusting the facts to meet their personal agenda is over whelming. And that just adds to the problem.

 

[pianodinosaur]

I must have missed that. What name calling are you referring to?

AN ASIDE: What is that dadburn photo in your signature? That thing has always creeped me out.

A picture of a distant galaxy taken by the Hubble Telescope. That answers the aside.

The name callling in the news media far worse than it was in our thread. I tried to be respectful. Closing the previous thread was the right thing to do. 'Nuff said on that matter.

 

[dougp26364]

I think we're saying agenda where op/ed is the underlying cause. If I want an opinion/editorial show, I'll watch those types of shows. News reporting should be just that, the reporting of news. Leave the op/ed pieces to shows dedicated to such matters.

I really have no issues with the programs dedicated to the opinions of the shows producer. If people want to tune in that's great. Talk radio is full of these types of shows. I just think that if you're going to advertise yourself as a NEWS program you need to strive to be just that, a news program. Accuracy should be paramount to the integrity of the show. As it is now, I take almost everything reported with a grain of salt.

A writer and comedian named Lewis Grizzard once put it this way. People asked him Lewis, why can't the newspapers be more accurate. His answer was, it only costs a quarter........and so it goes.

 

[ronparise]

Just to take one obvious issue that clearly shows a lack of balance in the media is to look at the Global Warming theory. The US media elite essentially reports only one side of it, and tries to pass that off as fact. There are a handful of exceptions that cover both sides like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily. In some other countries, notably the UK, you get a more balanced presentation. Much of the print media covers both sides, while in the electronic media, the BBC is clearly in the Warmist camp while some of the smaller TV outlets give coverage to both sides.

There are not two sides to this "theory" its not a theory its fact and there are only one set of facts. We can argue all day about the cause or at least the percentage of the problem that is caused by us and the burning of fossil fuel, and we can argue about what to do about it. (perhaps tax carbon use, perhaps subsidize wind and solar), but we cant create our own set of facts...

I dont know what they are saying in Europe but here about the one sided treatment of the issue here. The media bias seems to lean to creating a new set of facts to justify a drill baby drill energy policy

The neat thing about science however its that its fact based, where conclusions flow from observed facts. Its not a religion where we start with the belief and make up the facts to justify it

The general consensus of conservatives to dismiss Global Warming or Climate Change is whats caused me to pretty much dismiss everything they say.

 

[Beefnot]

There are not two sides to this "theory" its not a theory its fact and there are only one set of facts. We can argue all day about the cause or at least the percentage of the problem that is caused by us and the burning of fossil fuel, and we can argue about what to do about it. (perhaps tax carbon use, perhaps subsidize wind and solar), but we cant create our own set of facts...

I dont know what they are saying in Europe but here about the one sided treatment of the issue here. The media bias seems to lean to creating a new set of facts to justify a drill baby drill energy policy

The neat thing about science however its that its fact based, where conclusions flow from observed facts. Its not a religion where we start with the belief and make up the facts to justify it

The general consensus of conservatives to dismiss Global Warming or Climate Change is whats caused me to pretty much dismiss everything they say.

There are facts and then there is the interpretation of those facts. That's where the theory comes into play. The cause, future effects and perpetuity of global warming are theory at this point in our scientific understanding, no matter how much some camps would have us believe otherwise. I say give it a few years and things will become much clearer. We will likely have significantly more facts which will reduce the interpretation latitude. I say one way or another, we are going to definitively know the truth.

 

[easyrider]

It seems there are many things being left out of this story like the person running away from the school through the woods, how did the weapon get back into the trunk and ?????. Anyway, the article below was interesting.

Bill


http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2...sacre-became-a-mind-control-television-event/