Beautifully done.
If this had been a shooting in Philly or something, we'd have every news channel parroting the shooter's name until more people knew who the shooter was than the victim. It's sad that it's impressive for the media to treat a real-world tragedy like a real-world tragedy, rather than like a fictitious, celebrity drama show.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;46310033]Beautifully done.
If this had been a shooting in Philly or something, we'd have every news channel parroting the shooter's name until more people knew who the shooter was than the victim. It's sad that it's impressive for the media to treat a real-world tragedy like a real-world tragedy, rather than like a fictitious, celebrity drama show.[/QUOTE]
Ayup. It's been theorized many a time that the way the media actually handles shootings is a factor in them happening more often. Gives these morons a way to get their 15 minutes of fame, gives them a platform to spread their message that they just do not need. I'd sooner not see these events covered [i]at all[/i].
[QUOTE=TestECull;46311206]Ayup. It's been theorized many a time that the way the media actually handles shootings is a factor in them happening more often. Gives these morons a way to get their 15 minutes of fame, gives them a platform to spread their message that they just do not need. I'd sooner not see these events covered [i]at all[/i].[/QUOTE]
Very relevant to this discussion, I think.
[video=youtube;PezlFNTGWv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4[/video]
Media coverage like this in my country during the events of 26/11 also led to the deaths of several policeman as the terrorists were listening to the media and being informed of their every move.
I was very sad to hear of what happened there yesterday.
God, Rex has never slipped on his speeches.
it gave me shivers I've never heard news spoken like this
WHY ISN'T THERE MORE LIKE THIS?
[QUOTE=Covalent;46311789]it gave me shivers I've never heard news spoken like this
WHY ISN'T THERE MORE LIKE THIS?[/QUOTE]
because news stations like CNN love to use stories like this in melodramatic and fear-mongering ways
to attract more people into watching it and don't know when to drop it
[QUOTE=Covalent;46311789]it gave me shivers I've never heard news spoken like this
WHY ISN'T THERE MORE LIKE THIS?[/QUOTE]
Because ratings. Why wouldn't they fearmonger? People love watching that shit. Nobody likes a boring memorial story.
He looks a lot like john lithgow
[QUOTE=Covalent;46311789]it gave me shivers I've never heard news spoken like this
WHY ISN'T THERE MORE LIKE THIS?[/QUOTE]
-snip- late
Similarly, discussion of the École Polytechnique shootings in Canada (a fairly common occurrence, as the anniversary of the event is federally recognized National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women) is usually conducted in such a way as to avoid mentioning the killer or giving credence to his hatred. There's something to be said in that.
That was very good and i agree completely with what Rex said.
While I agree that we should not make the killer more prominent than the victims, I don't necessarily agree with not even saying the killer's name at all. It's the duty of the media to give us information. One of the first things I'd probably ask when hearing the story is "who?"
[QUOTE=Sharker;46314093]While I agree that we should not make the killer more prominent than the victims, I don't necessarily agree with not even saying the killer's name at all. It's the duty of the media to give us information. One of the first things I'd probably ask when hearing the story is "who?"[/QUOTE]
And what kind of sensible information would that give you? 99.999% of the time you'll never heard of the person, and in the case that you would know the person you'd know it from a different source before the media starts spouting their name every chance it gets anyway.
[QUOTE=Sharker;46314093]While I agree that we should not make the killer more prominent than the victims, I don't necessarily agree with not even saying the killer's name at all. It's the duty of the media to give us information. One of the first things I'd probably ask when hearing the story is "who?"[/QUOTE]
The more important question to ask is "Why?"
It doesn't matter who did it. What matters is there motives behind doing it. Information about what caused them to act the way they did is far more valuable than shining a spotlight on the person and giving them the attention they wanted in the first place
[QUOTE=Sharker;46314093]While I agree that we should not make the killer more prominent than the victims, I don't necessarily agree with not even saying the killer's name at all. It's the duty of the media to give us information. One of the first things I'd probably ask when hearing the story is "who?"[/QUOTE]
national news shouldn't make the killer known, really the name of the killer is relevant only to local news in most scenarios anyways.
nrl
[QUOTE=Sharker;46314093]While I agree that we should not make the killer more prominent than the victims, I don't necessarily agree with not even saying the killer's name at all. It's the duty of the media to give us information. One of the first things I'd probably ask when hearing the story is "who?"[/QUOTE]
Wrong. We don't need to know their names. No one does. The coward act that they committed upon a Canadian soldier, on Canadian soil should deem them nameless, and forgotten, and buried 6 feet under.
[QUOTE=Covalent;46316237]Wrong. We don't need to know their names. No one does. The coward act that they committed upon a Canadian soldier, on Canadian soil should deem them nameless, and forgotten, and buried 6 feet under.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for wanting the full story, but I actually like being informed on a situation. Just because we report too heavily on the shooter doesn't mean we should go all the way opposite and not report on them at all. They're a valid, and important part of the situation. It isn't like some nameless ageless robot drone went crazy, they're an actual live person with a motive and reason behind it and that is as valid a part of the story as the victim(s) are.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46316305]Sorry for wanting the full story, but I actually like being informed on a situation. Just because we report too heavily on the shooter doesn't mean we should go all the way opposite and not report on them at all. They're a valid, and important part of the situation. It isn't like some drone went crazy, they're an actual live person with a motive and reason behind it and that is as valid a part of the story as the victim(s) are.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for prioritizing the elimination of one of the motives for mass shootings, the desire for fame, ahead of your curiosity.
[QUOTE=Apache249;46316365]Sorry for prioritizing the elimination of one of the motives for mass shootings, the desire for fame, ahead of your curiosity.[/QUOTE]
Because "wanting to know the full story" means "24 hour coverage of the shooter and his life story".
I'm literally talking about a fucking name and a motive.
"John Doe killed 3 people, Jane Doe, 54, Paul Doe, 22, and Ben Doe, 34. A note was found at his house explaning his motive behind the shooting."
Is that so horrible? just knowing who did it and why?
[QUOTE=Covalent;46311789]it gave me shivers I've never heard news spoken like this
WHY ISN'T THERE MORE LIKE THIS?[/QUOTE]
Watch CBC more!
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46316535]Because "wanting to know the full story" means "24 hour coverage of the shooter and his life story".
I'm literally talking about a fucking name and a motive.
"John Doe killed 3 people, Jane Doe, 54, Paul Doe, 22, and Ben Doe, 34. A note was found at his house explaning his motive behind the shooting."
Is that so horrible? just knowing who did it and why?[/QUOTE]
it's giving them their 15 minutes, I don't know if it's really worth it to share information like that
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46316615]it's giving them their 15 minutes, I don't know if it's really worth it to share information like that[/QUOTE]
I don't fucking understand this. Saying the [i]name and motive[/i] is not going to influence anyone. Literally just one line, "This guy killed these people because of X." then moving on to the victims, will be completely harmless. It's absurdly paranoid to assume that simply saying the person's name on air will cause anything.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46316642]I don't fucking understand this. Saying the [i]name and motive[/i] is not going to influence anyone. Literally just one line, "This guy killed these people because of X." then moving on to the victims, will be completely harmless. It's absurdly paranoid to assume that simply saying the person's name on air will cause anything.[/QUOTE]
I said "I don't know", why are you so upset?
It is going to influence some people though. I don't know if that's worth worrying about, but it will.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46316642]I don't fucking understand this. Saying the [I]name and motive[/I] is not going to influence anyone. Literally just one line, "This guy killed these people because of X." then moving on to the victims, will be completely harmless. It's absurdly paranoid to assume that simply saying the person's name on air will cause anything.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to help you understand. A lot of these nutjobs are simply narcissists who commit these atrocities to get their name out there. Bury them in anonymity and that possibility falls through the cracks. If they know beforehand that they won't get any personal recognition what-so-ever, they'd be less likely to be willing to commit the act to begin with.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;46316642]I don't fucking understand this. Saying the [i]name and motive[/i] is not going to influence anyone. Literally just one line, "This guy killed these people because of X." then moving on to the victims, will be completely harmless. It's absurdly paranoid to assume that simply saying the person's name on air will cause anything.[/QUOTE]
it's just such a good 'fuck you' to the shooter though, it's basically a statement that they are such lowlifes they don't even deserve to be named
the name doesn't mean anything to us anyway, unless you personally knew them in which case you already know, it's far more symbolic to the person themselves you know?
[QUOTE=Apache249;46316905]Allow me to help you understand. A lot of these nutjobs are simply narcissists who commit these atrocities to get their name out there. Bury them in anonymity and that possibility falls through the cracks. If they know beforehand that they won't get any personal recognition what-so-ever, they'd be less likely to be willing to commit the act to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget, if some of these narcissists who didn't had the thought of doing such acts, before hand, got to see some bloke become 'famous' on TV because they shot a bunch of people, they themselves, will want the 'fame' as well, leading to more of such acts/copycats.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
