Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • as a society, we're more than a bit confused.  we hate/fear intelligence and education.  our religious beliefs are...well, 'misinformed' would be the polite way of putting it.  we love violence, but think sex is dirty.  we treat our politics like sports, and our sports like a religious cult.  we fear government control, yet cheer corporations when they pull crap that'd terrify George Orwell.  we want to make sure everyone is well armed, but are so afraid of terrorist attacks that we gate rape people before letting them get on a plane.

    I could go on, but you get the point.  we're not consistent in what it is we say we value as a society.  what DOES America stand for these days?  Truth?  not after the lies Romney told during this last election cycle.  Justice?  can any country that created/funded and runs secret CIA torture prisons be considered 'just'?  I think not.  'The american way'?  what does that even mean anymore?  sometimes I wonder just how much longer we can last.  we're turning inwards, becoming more self absorbed.  less concerned with knowledge, wisdom and freedom.  we're more concerned with control, greed and lust.  I think we are our own worst enemies.
  • Oh look, a member of the media just discovered that the media are vultures.  Welcome to 1775.
  • They got obama elected, so who cares? Let them have their sick perversions, as long as the important things are getting done.
  • Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

    But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

    1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
    2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
    3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
    4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
    5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
    6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

    -- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes
  • If this is true, why has violence been going down in America steadily over the last 20 years?
  • I make my living off the Evening News
    Just give me something-something I can use
    People love it when you lose,
    They love dirty laundry
  • This is why IMHO that we shouldn't be allowing criminals to get publicity. instead of knowing their names the Media should just report them as the crimes they are charged with "Mass murderer 1.. 2... 3" and all the information would be available online or with Freedom of information requests.
  • letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

    But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

    1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
    2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
    3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
    4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
    5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
    6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,


    -- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes


    So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.
  • The killer has one name, the victims 27. It's a lot easier to remember one name than 27. Just sayin'.

    On a serious note, I don't think the media is the problem. They're just reporting what we want to see/hear. The problem is us, not the media.
  • "We remember the killers' names, but not the names of the victims. We know the gory details. Media bloodlust is killing us as a society"

    This is an idiotic point for several reasons.

    1) In mass shootings, there are multiple victims, but only one killer.

    2) The identities of the shooters are important, newsworthy public information. Except in general terms, the identities of the victims are not. This is not because of any moral judgment positive or negative of either the shooters or the victims. It is simply because the shooter did something newsworthy, while the victims really did not.

    3) Publicizing the identities of the shooters involves fewer privacy issues for victims and families than publicizing the identities of the victims. I feel for the families of the shooters, I really do. But there is no question that the newsworthiness of the shooters' identities outweighs their privacy concerns. For the victims, this is less clear.

    I mean, why do we remember Hitler's name, but not the names of his millions of innocent victims? Historians' blood lust is killing our world, because there is clearly causation between mass homicidal tyranny and what gets written about in the history books.

    That argument is only marginally dumber than the the argument offered in the headline.
  • Like in the past, when we forgot the names of people like Jack the Ripper and remembered only the names of their victims? Bloodlust is part of our makeup as humans; media amplifies it, but was astonishingly even more gory in the past.
  • iollow: If this is true, why has violence been going down in America steadily over the last 20 years?


    Glaucoma's steady march in the greatest generation is affecting aim.
  • We also tend to focus a bit too much on the weapon of choice while conveniently ignoring what might have driven the killer to that point.

    Can we start talking about mental health yet?
  • mittromneysdog:

    That argument is only marginally dumber than the the argument offered in the headline.


    And yet treating it as a valid discussion point will divert attention from a functional solution just that little bit longer.

    You know who has cold, dead hands? Heaps of children.
  • Of course they are vultures. They wait for a horrible tragedy, such as the last school shooting where 20 kids were killed, and then they swoop down and shove microphones in the suffering peoples faces to catch all the drama to up their ratings. It's all about ratings folks. The more blood, bodies, horror, they can show "while telling you not to watch if you're squeamish, guaranteeing that you WILL watch" the higher the ratings, the more advertisers are willing to pay to put their shiat up on commercials. I remember questions were beyond inhuman being asked of the people at the last shooting, and of the coroner.

    How many times was each child shot?
    Were they executed?
    Did they suffer, or did they die right away?
    What were they wearing?
    Could you tell if they were cowering in the corner in terror while the gunman killed them?
    How many shots did they take before they died?
    How long did they lay there before they died?
    Did they look upset?
    (yes, someone actually asked those) to the coroner.

    And to the random kid that was lucky enough to be in another classroom, they were caught by reporters while being walked from the school with their parents.

    "Aw... Timmy, were you scared? What did you hear? Did you hear screaming? How many shots did you hear? Was your teacher upset? Did you cry? Are you scared to go back to school?

    Then they would act like they had empathy, and puke up some bullshiat to make it look like they were actually human and had some morality and sense of right and wrong, once they got all they could out of the poor traumatized child. Then they would move on to the next. Not to mention, calling the parents of the dead children ON THE SAME DAY and firing questions and hoping for a good soggy sound bite to air, thus boosting their ratings again. So yes, the media are vultures, and they prey on tragedy and pain, and use the victims as tools to up their ratings, and thus their cash. They make me want to vomit. There were a few reporters who had class, and just REPORTED what happened, without ass farking the survivors for their tasty money making sound bites and clips, but in general, yes, they are assholes.
  • Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Like in the past, when we forgot the names of people like Jack the Ripper and remembered only the names of their victims? Bloodlust is part of our makeup as humans; media amplifies it, but was astonishingly even more gory in the past.


    I don't even see why remembering the killers' names implies "bloodlust." Like it or lump it, these people did something memorable. Of course it makes sense to remember their names.
  • So self-absorbed. Someone in the media blames the media. Look within yourself, dumbass.
  • I'm always rooting for a higher kill score. Twenty-seven was impressive, but we can do better.
  • HotWingConspiracy: letrole: Spree shootings are caused by a lack of personal restraint. In some cases, such as Charles Whitman, the fellow was suffering from madness with an organic cause ie a brain tumour. He left diaries and letters that showed jumbled and irrational thoughts.

    But in nearly all cases, this lack of personal restraint comes from the breakdown of society.

    1. If suicide is no longer a sin,
    2. If public disobedience and defiance against authority are glorified,
    3. If fame or celebrity is rewarded without merit,
    4. If Right and Wrong are no longer absolute,
    5. If erratic behaviour is no longer shameful,
    6. If internal or self justification is held as a virtue,

    -- then it will all continue along this path until society completely collapses, and a new order reforms from the ashes

    So basically small government conservative gun owners brought this about.


    Gawd, that's the same post he's been putting here on Fark for
    AT LEAST A MONTH.


    /but I like your answer, anyway
  • kkinnison: This is why IMHO that we shouldn't be allowing criminals to get publicity. instead of knowing their names the Media should just report them as the crimes they are charged with "Mass murderer 1.. 2... 3" and all the information would be available online or with Freedom of information requests.


    Agreed -- I know that the local media at least make a policy of not reporting bridge jumpers, because they've found that such suicides being reported makes more of them happen (the copycat-suicide effect is mentioned in the article as well). Couldn't something similar be applied to these stories? I don't mean not reporting them altogether, but keeping the killer's name or any kind of "let's explore his motives to the point of interviewing the guy who cut his hair when he was 5" type of "coverage" under wraps. If people want posthumous fame, make sure that's what they absolutely won't get -- not even negative fame deriving from mockery, just no description whatsoever, kind of like how the Romans used to destroy busts and writings about people who had been condemned, so they would be completely forgotten. You'll never get rid of mass killings altogether, obviously, but this particular kind might be dampened considerably if we stopped making each one into a circus with the killer as the (usually posthumous) star.
  • panem et circenses.

    Seriously.

    If you are not familiar with the expression; it means bread and circuses; or in this case, it means bead and games.

    The phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirist and poet Juvenal.

    Basically; the roman senate/emperors would provide food and gladiator matches to keep the people from realizing how royally they were getting screwed.

    Instead of gladiators and crusty bread; we get fast food and 24 hour news. While we argue about whatever is having its 15 minutes; politicians and special interest groups are robbing us blind.

    Both sides are responsible.

    / I know, I know; you know of some mitigating factor for your side. I ask you, is it really a mitigating factor if it isn't 100% likely to get us out of our present circumstances? I know, I know; the other side is worse. They have been saying that about those bastards for years.
  • Matthew Keene: I'm always rooting for a higher kill score. Twenty-seven was impressive, but we can do better.


    /oh you...didn't your mommy give you enough attention when you were a child? Or..perhaps....too much. OO.
    Go troll somewhere else, grown ups are speaking here.
  • What a bunch of crock. Of course we can remember all the names, like I remember the name of John Wilkes Booth and the guy he killed with the beard and the stovepipe hat.
  • If we're going to blame "the media" for influencing crazy people and giving them ideas, then I guess we also have to blame TV and video games for the same thing. Right? Since they both glorify violence.

    Or we could say that crazy people do crazy things, and are influenced by all kinds of things, some of which make no sense.

    Weaver95: we're turning inwards, becoming more self absorbed. less concerned with knowledge, wisdom and freedom. we're more concerned with control, greed and lust. I think we are our own worst enemies.


    Thank you Weaver. I have a whole treatise worked out about how consumerism has destroyed us and made everyone concerned with nothing but money, and themselves (because we're worth it). I don't give a fark what anyone says, I think the consumer society is one of the greatest evils, and the biggest mind control experiment ever unleashed on society. We have bought into it completely, and we are paying big-time for it.
  • I still don't know who killed JFK>
  • Load 25 of 157 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.