Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The media didn't create the shootings. I don't blame the media for the shootings. What I have a problem with is the distortion. The adage "if it bleeds it leads" is quite true in this sense: While alot of violence takes place, and while there are violent people, it gets to where violence gets more attention than anything. Unless a person does something heroic, there isn't as much attention being paid to good things.
Every time a lunatic opens fire on people the media have just as much blood if 37129not more on their hands than the NRA. The NRA encourages responsible gun ownership; the media (and Hollywood) sensationalize murder. It's high time for the media to start acting more responsibly in their coverage of violent crime.
The NRA has no more resonsibility for gun-involved crime than the alcohol and car manufactures are responsible for drunk driving deaths - which is none. Same goes for the Media. That's like saying Lays is responsible for the fact that I am overweight (5' 4", 175#) because I eat a lot of chips and dip.
"If it bleeds it leads": Is the Media partly responsible for the rash of mass shootings?
Not much.
Obviously the guy(s) pulling the trigger(s) are pretty much entirely responsible.
As for the media, they're just doing what the media is supposed to do in such cases: reporting what information they can get about it, as fast as they can. The idea is that they are supposed to try to be accurate too... but plainly, they opt for speed over accuracy, especially at first.
If you're looking for someone other than the killer himself to be responsible, with the idea that those who fulfill the killer's desire for massive publicity are in a way motivating him to do it... Perhaps you should be looking at those who keep looking at the media reports for updates, time and again.
That's you and me.
If we didn't do that, the media wouldn't publish nearly as much, they way they do, about it.
Having the govt restrict the media from doing such lurid publishing of these events (since you opened this thread in the Politics section, I assume that was your aim), is IMHO a bad idea.
Giving government ANY say in what the media can and cannot publish, will cause far more harm to this country overall, then giving them NO say in it.
Just as giving government ANY say in what personal weapons you and I can carry, will cause far more harm to this country overall, than giving them NO say in it. That is the reason for the 2nd amendment's flat ban on any government restrictions or bans on such weapons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
