Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
mass shootings you don't hear about
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ignerntbend" data-source="post: 2297456" data-attributes="member: 6981"><p>If all these cases had gotten more coverage wouldn't we say that the media is tying to create the impression that there's an epidemic of gun violence? If they told us more that would be wrong, but they're telling us less which is also wrong. It's a mystery to me why people imagine we're not hearing enough about the latest D.C. shooting. I thought we were still hearing plenty.</p><p>I think the current complaint is that they only cover the cases involving the AR, but the guy that shot Giffords wasn't using an AR. The kid who shot-up Virginia Tech wasn't using an AR.</p><p></p><p>And of course the guy that shot those thirteen people in the park in Chicago WAS using an AR, so WTF?</p><p>If they had covered that case with more emphasis, we would have said, "sure, they cover that because of the AR, even though there were no fatalities!"</p><p>That's what we would have said, and let's face it, it is mostly about body counts and sensationalism.</p><p>When a guy targets a bunch of little kids, folks just want to hear more about him than the guy who shot four adults in Hobocken.</p><p>That's just the way the media works. In days to come we'll be giving this a whole new version of the Goldie Locks treatment.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ignerntbend, post: 2297456, member: 6981"] If all these cases had gotten more coverage wouldn't we say that the media is tying to create the impression that there's an epidemic of gun violence? If they told us more that would be wrong, but they're telling us less which is also wrong. It's a mystery to me why people imagine we're not hearing enough about the latest D.C. shooting. I thought we were still hearing plenty. I think the current complaint is that they only cover the cases involving the AR, but the guy that shot Giffords wasn't using an AR. The kid who shot-up Virginia Tech wasn't using an AR. And of course the guy that shot those thirteen people in the park in Chicago WAS using an AR, so WTF? If they had covered that case with more emphasis, we would have said, "sure, they cover that because of the AR, even though there were no fatalities!" That's what we would have said, and let's face it, it is mostly about body counts and sensationalism. When a guy targets a bunch of little kids, folks just want to hear more about him than the guy who shot four adults in Hobocken. That's just the way the media works. In days to come we'll be giving this a whole new version of the Goldie Locks treatment. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
mass shootings you don't hear about
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom