• 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!

Media Control

Would you support restrictions on the media if they had the potential to save lives?


  • Total voters
    6

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
[h=2]Would you support restrictions on the media if they had the potential to save lives?[/h]
yes
no
maybe



It seems that when ever some pathetic loser shoots up a place of unarmed people the media insists on making instant celebrities out of these monsters and the anti-2nd amendment crowd tards out of the woodwork in order to exploit those tragedies in order to try to impose anti-2nd amendment laws. The media in general will air the pictures and names of these monster.The media will talk about about what that monster is like. The media will ponder why that monster shot up all those innocent unarmed people. If that monster left a note the media seems all to happy to air what the note says, give you the gist of what it says and maybe even post it online. They always give a soap box to every anti-2nd amendment loon who wants to further **** on the 2nd amendment. One has to wonder if all the media is doing is popping in ideas into the heads of pathetic losers and social outcasts that if you want to be famous then shoot up a bunch of unarmed innocent people who happen to be white or unless you are a racist then shoot up a couple of innocent unarmed black people. The media also seems to insist on asking stupid pointless questions to the family members victims like how do you feel that you lost your loved one, how do you feel about the murderer who killed your loved one on and so on. The media also seems to insist on revealing how attempted murderers and other criminals were caught as though they were saying if you don't want to get caught then here is what you do. While if someone uses his firearms to stop or prevent a crime the media hardly gives notice, they don't make the person a instant celebrity, and they don't give a soap box to people suggesting that we should loosen anti-2nd amendment laws

So I say its time to return the favor to the media. I say that anytime the media insists on making celebs out of these scum and giving a soapbox to anti-2nd amendment loons we propose restricting or banning the media from milking these tragedies and from turning mass murderers into celebrities. This would do more to prevent mass shootings than any of the **** anti-2nd amendment loons like to propose.If these pathetic losers realize that the media isn't going to make them instant celebrities then maybe they will just cut their wrists, blow their brains out, lock themselves in the garage with the car running, hang themselves, slit their own throat,set themselves on fire or some other ways of killing themselves instead of trying to go out with a bang by taking out as many innocent unarmed people as they can.
 
[h=2]Would you support restrictions on the media if they had the potential to save lives?[/h]
yes
no
maybe



It seems that when ever some pathetic loser shoots up a place of unarmed people the media insists on making instant celebrities out of these monsters and the anti-2nd amendment crowd tards out of the woodwork in order to exploit those tragedies in order to try to impose anti-2nd amendment laws. The media in general will air the pictures and names of these monster.The media will talk about about what that monster is like. The media will ponder why that monster shot up all those innocent unarmed people. If that monster left a note the media seems all to happy to air what the note says, give you the gist of what it says and maybe even post it online. They always give a soap box to every anti-2nd amendment loon who wants to further **** on the 2nd amendment. One has to wonder if all the media is doing is popping in ideas into the heads of pathetic losers and social outcasts that if you want to be famous then shoot up a bunch of unarmed innocent people who happen to be white or unless you are a racist then shoot up a couple of innocent unarmed black people. The media also seems to insist on asking stupid pointless questions to the family members victims like how do you feel that you lost your loved one, how do you feel about the murderer who killed your loved one on and so on. The media also seems to insist on revealing how attempted murderers and other criminals were caught as though they were saying if you don't want to get caught then here is what you do. While if someone uses his firearms to stop or prevent a crime the media hardly gives notice, they don't make the person a instant celebrity, and they don't give a soap box to people suggesting that we should loosen anti-2nd amendment laws

So I say its time to return the favor to the media. I say that anytime the media insists on making celebs out of these scum and giving a soapbox to anti-2nd amendment loons we propose restricting or banning the media from milking these tragedies and from turning mass murderers into celebrities. This would do more to prevent mass shootings than any of the **** anti-2nd amendment loons like to propose.If these pathetic losers realize that the media isn't going to make them instant celebrities then maybe they will just cut their wrists, blow their brains out, lock themselves in the garage with the car running, hang themselves, slit their own throat,set themselves on fire or some other ways of killing themselves instead of trying to go out with a bang by taking out as many innocent unarmed people as they can.

That is never going to happen.

It would be a good thing if media had some kind of Code of Ethics, but I guess that's asking too much.
 
Freedom of the press is as important as freedom of speech. However there are laws on the books for not naming minors involved with crimes (victim or perp).

Pass a law that only allows the shooter to be referred to as "The shooter" and you won't get any complaints from me.
 
Freedom of the press is as important as freedom of speech. However there are laws on the books for not naming minors involved with crimes (victim or perp).

Pass a law that only allows the shooter to be referred to as "The shooter" and you won't get any complaints from me.

It could be argued that the only reason for freedom of the press is to expose government wrong doing.Not to be used to turn certain scum into instant celebrities.
 
It could be argued that the only reason for freedom of the press is to expose government wrong doing.Not to be used to turn certain scum into instant celebrities.

I agree 100%. I purposely block the memorization of the names of the shooters.

Instead of using "The Shooter" the media should use "The scumbag", because, well, this is a jamesrage thread.

I approve this message.
 
Back
Top Bottom