• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police: Gunman kills two at N.J. supermarket

Furiounova

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
4,237
Reaction score
552
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Or is the media increasing coverage of these events and overhyping them because it draws viewers and sells ad time?

In a nation of 315 million plus, stuff happens SOMEWHERE every day and most of the time we don't hear about 99% of it unless it happened in our town... or unless the media decides to blitz a certain type of story for their own reasons.
 
Or is the media increasing coverage of these events and overhyping them because it draws viewers and sells ad time?

In a nation of 315 million plus, stuff happens SOMEWHERE every day and most of the time we don't hear about 99% of it unless it happened in our town... or unless the media decides to blitz a certain type of story for their own reasons.

So show us how the media is increasing coverage while the same average number of events have remained constant.

If anything, it looks like the media is under reporting.
 
So show us how the media is increasing coverage while the same average number of events have remained constant.

If anything, it looks like the media is under reporting.

I'm not sure we really have evidence of under-reporting, but I wouldn't be surprised, Mr. Furry. And where I'd expect that under-reporting to be would be under-reporting the family/work-related shootings that are taking place in light of our poor economy.

We read about them every once in a while, but not as often, I believe, as they are taking place. When people are losing their jobs, being laid off, fired, losing their homes, etc., etc., a whole bunch of people in this country have had it "up to here." Marriages fail, families fall apart, lives implode -- people's tolerance is like a taut guitar string. Just ready to ping.
 
So show us how the media is increasing coverage while the same average number of events have remained constant.

If anything, it looks like the media is under reporting.


There are around ten thousand murders a year in this country, and hundreds of thousands of incidents where criminals seriously injure people, and millions of lesser crimes. How many of these do you normally see in the national news?

In a given day, national news (by which I mean you live in California and hear about an incident in NY, or vice-versa) probably reports only a handful of crimes on a national level where everyone watching the news sees it... that would translate to maybe a thousand nationally-covered crimes a year... not all of which are murders or involve severe injury to a person. That's probably less than 0.1% of total crimes committed, or less than one per thousand.

Given that, you can pick and choose what types of crimes you give more coverage to. You seriously don't think the media keeps up with what types of stories people are clicking on more lately? And that they don't hype stories they know will draw readers/viewers? Or that they don't play off a climate of fear or alarm or drama to sell ad time? They do.

I have no stats on hand to prove that this is more media hype than actual epidemic.... but a lifetime of experience with how the media operates tells me it is pretty likely.

"Gunman kills two, then himself, in supermarket" isn't exactly a major mass killing... frankly there have been local incidents I know about with as many or more people killed, here in my area where I live, that never made any national news outlets. So yeah, I feel confident this is a case of media hype.
 
I'm not sure we really have evidence of under-reporting, but I wouldn't be surprised, Mr. Furry. And where I'd expect that under-reporting to be would be under-reporting the family/work-related shootings that are taking place in light of our poor economy.

We read about them every once in a while, but not as often, I believe, as they are taking place. When people are losing their jobs, being laid off, fired, losing their homes, etc., etc., a whole bunch of people in this country have had it "up to here." Marriages fail, families fall apart, lives implode -- people's tolerance is like a taut guitar string. Just ready to ping.

Of course we don't read about them as often as they happen... this is a country of 315 million people with 50 states, many of which are nations unto themselves by the standards of the rest of the world. Most crimes are only reported locally, or regionally. Not that many end up on the national news.

Three killed? That's a typical Saturday night in my own tri-county area, and it rarely makes the national news.
 
I'm not sure we really have evidence of under-reporting, but I wouldn't be surprised, Mr. Furry. And where I'd expect that under-reporting to be would be under-reporting the family/work-related shootings that are taking place in light of our poor economy.

We read about them every once in a while, but not as often, I believe, as they are taking place. When people are losing their jobs, being laid off, fired, losing their homes, etc., etc., a whole bunch of people in this country have had it "up to here." Marriages fail, families fall apart, lives implode -- people's tolerance is like a taut guitar string. Just ready to ping.

I see three tiers of media:

mainstream
Local
Blogs

All three have different core motivators on what they choose to cover so I would expect the local level to report more on social terrorism versus the other two. I agree the economy can be a factor but I see this epidemic as gaining roots in Columbine when the economy was awesome.

For some reason several people from unrelated backgrounds are all finding a common bond in social terrorism. It seems it is largely too frightening for society to address head on and unlike the batman shooter, nobody who knew this shooter saw any warning signs.

It is also very troubling because they don't want anything other than to murder. Unlike the Norway, Sikh, and Adkison shootings, these are not motivated by politics or any religious ideology. It is a stand alone approach where there is no visible cure because we cannot uncover the root causes.
 
Of course we don't read about them as often as they happen... this is a country of 315 million people with 50 states, many of which are nations unto themselves by the standards of the rest of the world. Most crimes are only reported locally, or regionally. Not that many end up on the national news.

Three killed? That's a typical Saturday night in my own tri-county area, and it rarely makes the national news.

It's a typical Saturday night for an employee to walk into a place of business and shoot people?

We aren't talking about crime like robberies, gang bangers, etc. Of course crime happens all the time. This epidemic of social terrorism has been gaining momentum for over a decade and as long as people pretend it is "typical" and nothing out of the ordinary it will continue to happen unabated.
 
There are around ten thousand murders a year in this country, and hundreds of thousands of incidents where criminals seriously injure people, and millions of lesser crimes. How many of these do you normally see in the national news?

In a given day, national news (by which I mean you live in California and hear about an incident in NY, or vice-versa) probably reports only a handful of crimes on a national level where everyone watching the news sees it... that would translate to maybe a thousand nationally-covered crimes a year... not all of which are murders or involve severe injury to a person. That's probably less than 0.1% of total crimes committed, or less than one per thousand.

Given that, you can pick and choose what types of crimes you give more coverage to. You seriously don't think the media keeps up with what types of stories people are clicking on more lately? And that they don't hype stories they know will draw readers/viewers? Or that they don't play off a climate of fear or alarm or drama to sell ad time? They do.

I have no stats on hand to prove that this is more media hype than actual epidemic.... but a lifetime of experience with how the media operates tells me it is pretty likely.

"Gunman kills two, then himself, in supermarket" isn't exactly a major mass killing... frankly there have been local incidents I know about with as many or more people killed, here in my area where I live, that never made any national news outlets. So yeah, I feel confident this is a case of media hype.

I'm not talking about typical crime.

It doesn't matter if three people or 30 people were killed because I'm talking about social terrorism.

I knew you could not back up your theory the MSM has simply increased coverage.
 
Gunman kills two, then himself, at New Jersey supermarket, authorities say - CNN.com

"I believe everyone in the store was a target," said Kaplan, who noted that the gunman fired 16 rounds during his attack."

Is it just me or are these acts of social terrorism increasing at a disturbing frequency?

How can we even begin to address the causes without recognizing it is an epidemic?

Social terrorism? This sounds more like an employee going postal.An employee pissed off. Many criminals take it out on people they pissed off at.Road rage, crimes of passion, gang killings and so on. This is not terrorism.
 
I'm not talking about typical crime.

It doesn't matter if three people or 30 people were killed because I'm talking about social terrorism.

I knew you could not back up your theory the MSM has simply increased coverage.


I gave you some numbers, and pointed out that MSM does not (CAN not) cover all crimes on a national level... leaving them plenty of room to pick and choose what they will cover.

To me, the media's use of hype, scarism and fearmongering and excessive dramatization is so obvious and blatant I can hardly watch TV news anymore.
 
Also, I don't like this new term "social terrorism".

It REEKS of hype and sensationalism, of begging for a new "War On ______", a new excuse to increase police state powers, a new excuse to demonize categories of people (oh, say gun owners for instance) as "people likely to engage in social terrorism!"

Terrorism is politically motivated.

Nutcases who want to kill their co-workers because they're mad about their job are not terrorists, they're nutcases.
 
Social terrorism? This sounds more like an employee going postal.An employee pissed off. Many criminals take it out on people they pissed off at.Road rage, crimes of passion, gang killings and so on. This is not terrorism.

An employee killing co workers is social terrorism. The key aspect here is the shooter displayed no signs of disturbance before the shooting and in fact co workers have said the opposite.
 
I gave you some numbers, and pointed out that MSM does not (CAN not) cover all crimes on a national level... leaving them plenty of room to pick and choose what they will cover.

To me, the media's use of hype, scarism and fearmongering and excessive dramatization is so obvious and blatant I can hardly watch TV news anymore.

For the last time. I'm not talking about crime in general.
 
Also, I don't like this new term "social terrorism".

It REEKS of hype and sensationalism, of begging for a new "War On ______", a new excuse to increase police state powers, a new excuse to demonize categories of people (oh, say gun owners for instance) as "people likely to engage in social terrorism!"

Terrorism is politically motivated.

Nutcases who want to kill their co-workers because they're mad about their job are not terrorists, they're nutcases.

It is called social terrorism because that is the most accurate description and not all terrorism is motivated by politics. Lynching was a form of social terrorism that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the social ill of racism. Yes. White people were lynched. White people who helped black people.

It also has nothing to do with trying to demonize gun owners of anyone else. Please accept my apologies for having the rude audacity to notice a trend of social terrorism and discuss it to help understand what is happening.
 
An employee killing co workers is social terrorism. The key aspect here is the shooter displayed no signs of disturbance before the shooting and in fact co workers have said the opposite.

No, an employee killing co workers is just a nutjob pissed off at his place of employment or former employment so he or she is trying to enact some personal revenge. Its called going postal. Terrorism is the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce others for a political cause. An employee or former employee going postal is someone trying to get some sort of payback or revenge. This is personal, he was not trying to coerce his employer into doing anything.
 
Last edited:
It is called social terrorism because that is the most accurate description and not all terrorism is motivated by politics. Lynching was a form of social terrorism that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the social ill of racism. Yes. White people were lynched. White people who helped black people.

The KKK is or was a terrorist group.They were the American version of jihadists in the middle east are pissed off because the north won and was imposing its will on the south. Racial issues at the time were political.


It also has nothing to do with trying to demonize gun owners of anyone else. Please accept my apologies for having the rude audacity to notice a trend of social terrorism and discuss it to help understand what is happening.

You keep telling yourself that and one day you will really believe it.
 
Last edited:
The KKK is or was a terrorist group. Racial issues at the time were political.




You keep telling yourself that and one day you will really believe it.

Racial issues are social issues. Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.

Why don't you find some posts where I demonize gun owners for having guns? Maybe you can go visit the thread where I defend the cops shooting the Empire building shooter on the sidewalk
This will be fun.
 
No, an employee killing co workers is just a nutjob pissed off at his place of employment or former employment so he or she is trying to enact some personal revenge. Its called going postal. Terrorism is the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce others for a political cause. An employee or former employee going postal is someone trying to get some sort of payback or revenge. This is personal, he was not trying to coerce his employer into doing anything.

The last line of your post is what separates modern social terrorism from traditional terrorism and a point I've already highlighted. The batman shooting is probably the best example as it was someone shooting and killing complete strangers celebrating pop culture.
 
Racial issues are social issues. Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.
.

At the time when the KKK was a terrorist orginization race and the treatment of blacks were political issues.
 
At the time when the KKK was a terrorist orginization race and the treatment of blacks were political issues.

I understand that but it does nothing to change:

Racial issues are social issues. Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.
 
The last line of your post is what separates modern social terrorism from traditional terrorism and a point I've already highlighted.
He was not trying to coerce anyone into doing anything. In his sick mind he was trying to get payback.Again this is not terrorism. This is just someone going postal.

The batman shooting is probably the best example as it was someone shooting and killing complete strangers celebrating pop culture.
Other than being some pathetic loser mad at everyone, did he have any stated goals?Was he trying to coerce some sort of change with his killing spree? If not then it is not an act of terrorism.
 
He was not trying to coerce anyone into doing anything. In his sick mind he was trying to get payback.Again this is not terrorism. This is just someone going postal.


Other than being some pathetic loser mad at everyone, did he have any stated goals?Was he trying to coerce some sort of change with his killing spree? If not then it is not an act of terrorism.


That is why it is social terrorism. He had no goal in mind other than murder, just like the batman shooting.
 
I understand that but it does nothing to change:

Racial issues are social issues. Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.
It was not social terrorism when the KKK were lynching blacks, republicans and anyone who sympathized or aided them, it was just pure and simple terrorism.
 
It was not social terrorism when the KKK were lynching blacks, republicans and anyone who sympathized or aided them, it was just pure and simple terrorism.

What exactly is confusing about this statement:

Politics may or may not play a role but the core of racism is a social ill and not government fall out.
 
Back
Top Bottom