Yet another tragedy

[ColinEssex]

Already corrected you once on that. The event in New Orleans is what rattled me.

Yes and I accept that no problem. But, it does also read that I rattled you.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

Keep it up. I won't have to ban you. Doc or one of the other moderators will do it for me.

 

[Steve R.]

The terrorist caused tragedy at New Orleans may result in the continued erosion of our civil liberties. There is significant cognitive dissonance concerning the proposal in the article below. We don't (at least on this forum) want a surveillance state, yet this is actually what is being proposed by Homeland Security (at least until Jan. 20th)!!! Recall, the knee-jerk (legislative) reaction to the September 11th destruction of the World Trade Center eventually led to the attempt by the Intelligence community (Democratic party) to spy on the Trump campaign and then charge him and others with a plethora of fake criminal charges over the past 8 years. As the saying goes: "Be careful of what you ask for".

House Homeland Security Chair: We Need More FBI Agents in Spots People Get Radicalized

On Friday's "CBS Mornings," House Homeland Security Committee Chair Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) argued that preventing an attack like the New Orleans terrorist | Clips

www.breitbart.com

 

[Cotswold]

I agree, an excuse by the control freaks to expand their ivory towers and increase their power.
Just a pity that a solution is never a priority.

 

[Pat Hartman]

There is no solution. But we can stop glorifying and idolizing terrorists. That's about it. The Media simply exacerbates the problem with their "if it bleeds, it leads" mantra. That isn't what journalism was all about. That was how the rags worked, not actual news outlets. Click-bate has been on our newsstands for decades. The mainstream media has devolved to their level.

 

[ColinEssex]

There is no solution. But we can stop glorifying and idolizing terrorists. That's about it. The Media simply exacerbates the problem with their "if it bleeds, it leads" mantra. That isn't what journalism was all about. That was how the rags worked, not actual news outlets. Click-bate has been on our newsstands for decades. The mainstream media has devolved to their level.

So you think that tragedies such as the latest in New Orleans or 11/9 or the German Market should not be reported? Surely that is suppression of a free press. Interesting that you appear to want to ban anything you don't like.
Col

 

[Isaac]

Pat didn't criticize "If it bleeds, it gets reported', she criticized "If it bleeds, it leads".
There is a difference.

We need to stop producing young people from Universities that encourage the type of thinking that America is a horrible nation.

Obviously that's going to lead to people who want to do violence to America.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Colin, I know English is your native language but playing dumb simply so you can criticize everything I say, doesn't reflect well on your intelligence . The POINT of my comment is the way the media outlets glorify the perps. Look at the fan club the guy who murdered the insurance executive has acquired. That is just plain sick and the media publicizes it which only gets him more fans.

 

[ColinEssex]

Pat dear, you said ' stop glorifying and idolising terrorists'. If an event is reported in the media is that glorifying? Your comment read that you would prefer not to have these events in the media, therefore ban them.
Perhaps you could indicate how to report events, yet not exacerbate situations.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Perhaps you could indicate how to report events, yet not exacerbate situations.

Col, hold on to your hat. (Assuming you wear one.) You have asked a pertinent question that requires me to step back and answer analytically. And my response might surprise you by somewhat agreeing with you.

To start, let's acknowledge that market forces have pushed journalists to seek the 'scandal of the week' or the 'tragedy of the week' because that is how they sell newspaper. BUT they wouldn't be in that mindset unless the people who pay subscriptions for their news rags demanded coverage of news with a near-prurient interest... sort of like the old saying about watching train wrecks... you know it will end up tragically, but your can't take your eyes away. Two thousand years ago, the Roman Coliseum glorified acts of war (symbolically) and violence (literally) because the Roman government understood "bread and circuses" as a way to keep the people content. Today it is GrubHub or other delivery services and cable or streaming TV to provide food and entertainment as a way to keep people content. New technology. Same concept. Larger audience.

Let's also acknowledge that it IS in the public interest to publicize violent or tragic events. The public SHOULD be informed of the events in their country so that when discussions come up relating to those events, the public will be properly informed if a vote is required. The public SHOULD know of events that affect their lives. Publishing the news about Joe Biden's actions, or Kamala Harris's actions, or Donald Trump's actions - and their various followers - is the CRUCIAL element that was intended by the USA's constitutional right of "freedom of the press." If the people aren't informed, how would you expect them to vote in a meaningful way?

So the question becomes "how much coverage is too much coverage?" Or "what kind of coverage is the wrong kind of coverage?" But then, the most important question is, "who gets to decide what is wrong or how much is too much?" And for that, we have to name a human being to give a final "yea" or "nay" on a publishing question. But who says that human is right? Oh, you could ask to make a law governing such questions, but all you did was kick that can down the road to the judge who will preside over the lawsuit filed to claim a violation of said hypothetical law.

Wait, let's let AI decide how much is too much? After all, AI is never wrong, ... is it? (Try not to spill your drink when you laugh at that question.)

Col, this is the perfect example of an unsolvable question.

 

[ColinEssex]

Thank you Doc. Your reply is, as usual, comprehensive and clear. To be honest it's more or less what I was trying to work out. Who decides? Etc
I think what annoys me is that people moan and whine on about everything and everyone yet they never come up with a sensible solution. I suppose that's how riots start leading to some kind of coup.
Oh, and yes I do wear a hat in winter, it's what we call a flat cap.
Col

 

[ColinEssex]

As an afterthought, wouldn't it be lovely if everyone could 'Give Peace a Chance'.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

John and Yoko would agree with you.

 

[Isaac]

As an afterthought, wouldn't it be lovely if everyone could 'Give Peace a Chance'.
Col

Unfortunately, wow that's a nice idea, it only would work if everyone was committed to it but since some players aren't the ONLY way to achieve it is piece through strength.

 

[Steve R.]

So the question becomes "how much coverage is too much coverage?"

Your post raises a very subtle aspect to the news. Today, we live in a society that is "online" 24/7. In days of past, the news slowly oozed from the point of origin to other towns. I will even venture to say, that the death of one New Zealand policeman would never have made it to the US papers in the 1800's though it did recently. The death of 14 people in New Orleans by an insane person driving a horse drawn wagon, may have taken several days to make it to New York. Even if reported, it may have been at the back of the paper as other (local) headlines may have taken precedence. Today, we live in a world where many events however minor are immediately available to the public. Not only that, but if its a slow news day; the media, to get eyeballs may go to great lengths to sensationalize the story.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I will gloss over the details, but in doing my genealogy research, I briefly delved into a site that was a compendium of archived newspapers. I noted that after a particular incident relating to one of my ancestors, news spread across the state of Alabama over a period of about four days during late 1939 (involving a shooting in which my ancestor was involved as indirect victim, not perpetrator). The perpetrator fired twelve rounds from a six shooter, which means he reloaded once - and in twelve shots hit his intended target three times from relatively close range. Total klutz.

FWIW, the cost of the newspaper archives was more than I wanted to pay to continue the research and I withdrew from that subscription. The point of this is that a shooting that was headlines the next day in Birmingham Alabama was mentioned in newspapers a hundred miles away after about 3-4 days, in line with your comments about the speed of news traveling.