How the American Media Fuels A Cycle of Violence

Once in a while I find a video on YouTube which I believe addresses a point I think we need to see and address. I put this in Media Bias because I think it is about biased reporting.

In this case I discovered a short/concise video talking about how the Media fuels a cycle of violence, which goes hand in hand with a point I have made regarding the alleged increase in mass shootings.

The author of the video posits this explanation...the Main Stream Media is in competition for views with Online Media. They are for-profit business enterprises. Views sell advertising, and the more views a show gets, the more valuable the advertising time.

That this is why we see rehashing of stories and the use of talking heads during down periods.

That this also leads them to hype stories with content, and the best story for ongoing content is a mass shooting. Watch the video for specifics:



Result: Hyping generates copycats.

I agree with his assessment. Do you?

If YOU agree, then what if anything should/could be done about it?

If you don't agree, what is your take on this explanation and what would you consider a more valid reason? What would YOU suggest we do about your reason?

So much for the people's guardian being there for the American people serving to prevent excesses within the political system.

Man, y'all really did get royally taken.

One gigantic lie from its terrorist/genocidal beginnings to its present day terrorist/genocidal ways.

How the American Media Fuels A Cycle of Violence

or, more accurately

How America Fuels A Cycle of Violence.

Captain Adverse said:

Once in a while I find a video on YouTube which I believe addresses a point I think we need to see and address. I put this in Media Bias because I think it is about biased reporting.

In this case I discovered a short/concise video talking about how the Media fuels a cycle of violence, which goes hand in hand with a point I have made regarding the alleged increase in mass shootings.

The author of the video posits this explanation...the Main Stream Media is in competition for views with Online Media. They are for-profit business enterprises. Views sell advertising, and the more views a show gets, the more valuable the advertising time.

That this is why we see rehashing of stories and the use of talking heads during down periods.

That this also leads them to hype stories with content, and the best story for ongoing content is a mass shooting. Watch the video for specifics:



Result: Hyping generates copycats.

I agree with his assessment. Do you?

If YOU agree, then what if anything should/could be done about it?

If you don't agree, what is your take on this explanation and what would you consider a more valid reason? What would YOU suggest we do about your reason?

Click to expand...

There was a time when news casters didn't compete for ratings.

While it may or may not be a direct causal-effect relationship, back in those days we didn't have nearly as much biased in the media, nor as much political activism in the media either, and in general, it would seem that back then there was far more journalistic integrity, honesty and factually based reporting, rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry journalist interviewing each other on their opinions as to what the news meant (well, when you have that much time to fill, you have to do something, right? Which may be another thing that's causing the quality of news nose dive, which is the dedicated 24x7 news channel, hmm)

I suppose the question is how do you go back to the previous system when news programs and news casters didn't compete on the basis or ratings?
I'm not even sure that's possible, now that we've adopted the ratings based competition.

I suppose the question could also be how do you put the 24x7 news channel genie back in its bottle?
I'm not even sure that's possible, now that we've got already well established news channels as such.

Yeah, I remember the morons on some MSM channels perpetuating the Michael Brown "hands up don't shoot" lie.




Upside of the lie was that the protests did get some of the Leftists out walking (they obviously needed the exercise!)

Captain Adverse said:

Once in a while I find a video on YouTube which I believe addresses a point I think we need to see and address. I put this in Media Bias because I think it is about biased reporting.

In this case I discovered a short/concise video talking about how the Media fuels a cycle of violence, which goes hand in hand with a point I have made regarding the alleged increase in mass shootings.

The author of the video posits this explanation...the Main Stream Media is in competition for views with Online Media. They are for-profit business enterprises. Views sell advertising, and the more views a show gets, the more valuable the advertising time.

That this is why we see rehashing of stories and the use of talking heads during down periods.

That this also leads them to hype stories with content, and the best story for ongoing content is a mass shooting. Watch the video for specifics:



Result: Hyping generates copycats.

I agree with his assessment. Do you?

If YOU agree, then what if anything should/could be done about it?

If you don't agree, what is your take on this explanation and what would you consider a more valid reason? What would YOU suggest we do about your reason?

Click to expand...

I agree. I saw the video you shared here yesterday, it's getting a ton of support online. Fox News covered this shooting non stop for hours on end, giving the little ****er exactly what he wanted.

Given how profitable mass shootings are for cable news, why wouldn't they be inclined to want more of them? Martha McCallum and Wolf Blitzer are millionaires whose lives aren't in danger from these types of shootings, they don't have to rub elbows with the grubby masses, so I believe they probably want these types of tragedies to occur. Its a win-win situation for them.

camlok said:

How the American Media Fuels A Cycle of Violence

or, more accurately

How America Fuels A Cycle of Violence.

Click to expand...

And you wonder why you are disregarded?

RetiredUSN said:

And you wonder why you are disregarded?

Click to expand...

I don't wonder at all. Americans, by and large, have a deep aversion to the truth. It's like a cross to a vampire.

Captain Adverse said:

Once in a while I find a video on YouTube which I believe addresses a point I think we need to see and address. I put this in Media Bias because I think it is about biased reporting.

In this case I discovered a short/concise video talking about how the Media fuels a cycle of violence, which goes hand in hand with a point I have made regarding the alleged increase in mass shootings.

The author of the video posits this explanation...the Main Stream Media is in competition for views with Online Media. They are for-profit business enterprises. Views sell advertising, and the more views a show gets, the more valuable the advertising time.

That this is why we see rehashing of stories and the use of talking heads during down periods.

That this also leads them to hype stories with content, and the best story for ongoing content is a mass shooting. Watch the video for specifics:

Result: Hyping generates copycats.

I agree with his assessment. Do you?

If YOU agree, then what if anything should/could be done about it?

If you don't agree, what is your take on this explanation and what would you consider a more valid reason? What would YOU suggest we do about your reason?

Click to expand...

Question:

Which media outlets would you personally exclude from engaging in what you’ve labeled as “biased reporting”?

Removable Mind said:

Question:

Which media outlets would you personally exclude from engaging in what you’ve labeled as “biased reporting”?

Click to expand...

In regards to my OP issue regarding MSM netorks? None.

Captain Adverse said:

In regards to my OP issue regarding MSM netorks? None.

Click to expand...

Hi Captain, here is a clip from the Greg Gutfeld show from Saturday. I think it fits right in with your OP.

Captain Adverse said:

In regards to my OP issue regarding MSM netorks? None.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

Following because I think the media is fueling this violence.

eohrnberger said:

There was a time when news casters didn't compete for ratings.

Click to expand...

No harm intended, but you can't be this naive. There were basically three and they were ruled by the same economic system that exists today. There just wasn't as much competition. They still fed the public the propaganda but it seemed not so combative because the three had a lock on what reality should look like.

While it may or may not be a direct causal-effect relationship, back in those days we didn't have nearly as much biased in the media, nor as much political activism in the media either, and in general, it would seem that back then there was far more journalistic integrity, honesty and factually based reporting, rather than every Tom, Dick and Harry journalist interviewing each other on their opinions as to what the news meant (well, when you have that much time to fill, you have to do something, right? Which may be another thing that's causing the quality of news nose dive, which is the dedicated 24x7 news channel, hmm)

Click to expand...

There was the same bias, it just wasn't as forward. But remember, these were the times of women as chattels, Blacks, and other people of color known by all as second/third rate citizens. Look at how easy it still is for police to murder folks, and many might think we now live in civilized times.

Those were times when evil people like Billy Graham were listened to. Not many people spoke out. Most citizens were milquetoast.

camlok said:

No harm intended, but you can't be this naive. There were basically three and they were ruled by the same economic system that exists today. There just wasn't as much competition. They still fed the public the propaganda but it seemed not so combative because the three had a lock on what reality should look like.

Click to expand...

Let me elaborate a bit more.

Of course news presenters back in the day had their political leanings, just you never saw them on screen. Someone cut from this cloth in present day would Chris Wallace. His interviews are solid, fact based and tough questions, and it doesn't matter from which side of the political aisle the interviewed are from. From his interviews you'd never know that he has Democratic leaning, which is fine, as it never enters or affects his interviews. This is what I'm talking about.

There was the same bias, it just wasn't as forward. But remember, these were the times of women as chattels, Blacks, and other people of color known by all as second/third rate citizens. Look at how easy it still is for police to murder folks, and many might think we now live in civilized times.

Those were times when evil people like Billy Graham were listened to. Not many people spoke out. Most citizens were milquetoast.

Click to expand...

Meh. You are dragging in a whole social context that's not what I'm talking about anyway.

camlok said:

I don't wonder at all. Americans, by and large, have a deep aversion to the truth. It's like a cross to a vampire.

Click to expand...

Do you hear yourself? Do you wonder why people write you off as a bigotted ***hole?

Captain Adverse said:

Once in a while I find a video on YouTube which I believe addresses a point I think we need to see and address. I put this in Media Bias because I think it is about biased reporting.

In this case I discovered a short/concise video talking about how the Media fuels a cycle of violence, which goes hand in hand with a point I have made regarding the alleged increase in mass shootings.

The author of the video posits this explanation...the Main Stream Media is in competition for views with Online Media. They are for-profit business enterprises. Views sell advertising, and the more views a show gets, the more valuable the advertising time.

That this is why we see rehashing of stories and the use of talking heads during down periods.

That this also leads them to hype stories with content, and the best story for ongoing content is a mass shooting. Watch the video for specifics:

Result: Hyping generates copycats.

I agree with his assessment. Do you?

If YOU agree, then what if anything should/could be done about it?

If you don't agree, what is your take on this explanation and what would you consider a more valid reason? What would YOU suggest we do about your reason?

Click to expand...

I think the immediate response is usually the wrong one. I mean, 2018 is currently an outlier in a steady decline in school shootings since the 1990s. I don't know if a need for notoriety is really that strong of a drive for any of these shooters. They mostly seem to be revenge driven. I would say, though, that it is possible that they see news of the shootings, and the pain in those who experience the shootings and think "yeah, that is the pain [their target] deserve".

As such, I don't see the refusal to name shooters as having any real impact. What needs to happen first is for the news to sensationalize the stories where such plots DON'T work more than to sensationalize the stories of the times where it does. We had two thwarted attempts at a school shooting in the same week, but likely most people don't know that.

Second, we need a more efficient way of ridding the schools of bad, disinterested or outright malicious teachers. The attitude within the school that fosters the kind of misery that seems omnipresent in these kids school life is a reflection of the school administration.

That is a fine line to walk, though, between cracking down of malignant apathy and giving malicious children a way to cause misery in the lives of their teachers... that I think is really the root of the issue in society at large. We seem to have a significant number of people on both sides of every equation looking to use the good intentions of society to malicious ends. Give teachers a feeling of invincibility and more teachers have sex with their kids, stop teaching, and act like assholes... flip the coin and focus on protecting the kids from the teachers and you lose control of the classroom.

I think it just comes down to the problem being that we are a society of scams and distrust and disunity. Where that originates is up for debate and probably outside of the scope of this thread.

Acadia said:

Following because I think the media is fueling this violence.

Click to expand...

Some, not all, of these events are staged events. IMO the way the media covers any given mass shooting is very much an indicator of whether or not it might be a staged event.

Grand Mal said:

Do you hear yourself? Do you wonder why people write you off as a bigotted ***hole?

Click to expand...

Are you going to take up the position that the American media and the people who swallow their lies are somehow truthful?

camlok said:

So much for the people's guardian being there for the American people serving to prevent excesses within the political system.

Man, y'all really did get royally taken.

One gigantic lie from its terrorist/genocidal beginnings to its present day terrorist/genocidal ways.

Click to expand...

camlok said:

How the American Media Fuels A Cycle of Violence

or, more accurately

How America Fuels A Cycle of Violence.

Click to expand...

So bottom line, you got nothing and are unresponsive. Thanks for playing.

jmotivator said:

...

I think it just comes down to the problem being that we are a society of scams and distrust and disunity. Where that originates is up for debate and probably outside of the scope of this thread.

Click to expand...

Some honesty. I'm shocked.

Everyone knows where this comes from. Terrorists who celebrate and celebrated terrorism, celebrate their country doing what the Nazis did, rejoice in violence, brainwash their youth and who is it that has helped all this along for the entire history of the USA, none other than American media.

Captain Adverse said:

Once in a while I find a video on YouTube which I believe addresses a point I think we need to see and address. I put this in Media Bias because I think it is about biased reporting.

In this case I discovered a short/concise video talking about how the Media fuels a cycle of violence, which goes hand in hand with a point I have made regarding the alleged increase in mass shootings.

The author of the video posits this explanation...the Main Stream Media is in competition for views with Online Media. They are for-profit business enterprises. Views sell advertising, and the more views a show gets, the more valuable the advertising time.

That this is why we see rehashing of stories and the use of talking heads during down periods.

That this also leads them to hype stories with content, and the best story for ongoing content is a mass shooting. Watch the video for specifics:



Result: Hyping generates copycats.

I agree with his assessment. Do you?

If YOU agree, then what if anything should/could be done about it?

If you don't agree, what is your take on this explanation and what would you consider a more valid reason? What would YOU suggest we do about your reason?

Click to expand...

We live in a violent world and these days it's getting worse. The media reports on it, so I don't see how they could be fueling it. I didn't watch the video because I think that IT is biased. To not report on this stuff means we wouldn't know as much about it, and thus we'd remain ignorant of what's going on around us.

jet57 said:

We live in a violent world and these days it's getting worse. The media reports on it, so I don't see how they could be fueling it. I didn't watch the video because I think that IT is biased. To not report on this stuff means we wouldn't know as much about it, and thus we'd remain ignorant of what's going on around us.

Click to expand...

The media goes beyond reporting. They politicize it. There is widespread coverage for days, with little or no new information to put forth. So, they have panels of "experts" and talking heads and pundits and pop culture figures who comment upon commentary and drive narratives and agendas ad nauseam.

Nikolas Cruz will forever live in infamy. He launched a movement and marches big and small. He launched a cadre of kids into the limelight.
That's a lot that he can take credit for, from the sick standpoint of someone who thinks shooting school students is a good way to get even, and get famous.

All a shooter need do is pull a trigger, and the rest falls right into place.

Acadia said:

The media goes beyond reporting. They politicize it. There is widespread coverage for days, with little or no new information to put forth. So, they have panels of "experts" and talking heads and pundits and pop culture figures who comment upon commentary and drive narratives and agendas ad nauseam.

Nikolas Cruz will forever live in infamy. He launched a movement and marches big and small. He launched a cadre of kids into the limelight.
That's a lot that he can take credit for, from the sick standpoint of someone who thinks shooting school students is a good way to get even, and get famous.

All a shooter need do is pull a trigger, and the rest falls right into place.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but politics politicizes it. The news reports on what THEY say. Now Fox News, and Lush Rumbaugh and Sean Hannity - THEY politicize it.

Cruz didn't launch anything but his own death warrant. Those kids rightfully and correctly responded to yet another massacre with an AR15, this time at a school.

If the shooter wouldn't pull the trigger, nothing would fall.

jet57 said:

I'm sorry, but politics politicizes it. The news reports on what THEY say. Now Fox News, and Lush Rumbaugh and Sean Hannity - THEY politicize it.

Cruz didn't launch anything but his own death warrant. Those kids rightfully and correctly responded to yet another massacre with an AR15, this time at a school.

If the shooter wouldn't pull the trigger, nothing would fall.

Click to expand...

Politics is inanimate and can't politicize. Only humans can do that, and politics thus does not care about ratings, money and shareholders. People do.
And by people, that's people on BOTH sides, not just those on the "other" side.

Cruz may or may not get the death penalty and if he does die for his crimes, it will be years and years from now.

PS...the AR-15 narrative has already been abandoned by the Left and the Parkland posse. Texas blew it out of the water.

Hell, even David Hogg have moved on from beating the AR-15 drum to telling his followers and the media to not give the Texas shooter any publicity. Don't say his name and don't show his photo.
Maybe there's hope for him after all.