Moral of the story: National medias are big fat liars.
...but we all knew that right?
Interesting story on some false information about Columbine
- Thread starter Floptical
- Start date
Moral of the story: National medias are big fat liars.
...but we all knew that right?
Wrong.
Cable news media is ENTERTAINMENT. They compete for advertising and viewership. Factual accounts arent as entertaining as sensationalist manipulation.
Lying implies intentional deceit. They get away with it because of the distinction in motives.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
It's still intentional deceit.
They're making crap up because it sounds better than the boring facts they are handed, just because it's not intended to be malicious doesn't make it any less of a lie.
They're making crap up because it sounds better than the boring facts they are handed, just because it's not intended to be malicious doesn't make it any less of a lie.
Mean Mr. Mustard
Always shouts out something obscene
It makes a difference because reporting hyperbole and rumors isnt calumny/libel/slander. Innocent dissemination or a mistake of fact (statement made in good faith) doctrines (not to mention free speech) make it impossible to touch them.
You have to be really cynical to not believe anything you hear on the news. Most of it is grounded in something real, and reported with a tone or a slant that has more in common with rhetoric than factual accounts.
It also isnt new, since the beginning of newspapers the truth has been skewered in favor of one person or another's agenda.
Syrup Beaver
pants log
I am of the mindset that does believe that there is intentional misinformation being spread by the media. Not everything is false, of course, but when you think of the control media has on the american populace's way of thinking, and how having a TV (or more) in every home really goes a long way to keeping the populace sedated, and you now have a replacement for religion being the opiate of the masses, as mass media has taken over.
And since the common american is becoming 'dumbed down' as time goes by, making them less likely to question what is being presented to them while they go on their way of being productive americans, why would one not think that there is the possibility that we are being intentionally spoonfed a great deal of information to direct our thoughts in ways to progress an agenda.
And since the common american is becoming 'dumbed down' as time goes by, making them less likely to question what is being presented to them while they go on their way of being productive americans, why would one not think that there is the possibility that we are being intentionally spoonfed a great deal of information to direct our thoughts in ways to progress an agenda.
It's just a matter of time before schools are like the prison in Fortress. If we raise our kids like criminals then it's no surprise that they become them.
Dude, I am the original whee guns poster
I dont disagree. I was just saying that people use the media to back them up when they agree with it, and that it is impossible to eliminate slanted reporting as long as some people want something to agree with them and be entertaining at the same time o.oI cant stand 'conservative' reporting, or the dippy hippy news. Trial transcripts are more interesting if I actually care to read about something. Havent watched news in like 3 years. I sorta soak it up by osmosis.
Innocent mistake is a defense in law for anything but strict liability torts. It would be impossible to establish mens rea for a criminal prosecution unless they had like, a conspiracy.
Also it always is surprising reading about it that if they planned it all so well they really didnt get the tactics down. Grats, your legacy is a incompetent school massacre that only become a big deal because there was nothing else on the news at the time.
*is still reading salon article about the misreporting http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index.html *
*is still reading salon article about the misreporting http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/09/23/columbine/index.html *
is it wrong that i think i could've done it better?
remember those kids that did the first major hyped up school shooting in arkansas? Jonesborrow? i remember at the time that they both got the max sentence arkansas carried at the time... which meant they'd be out when they were 18 or 19. that means they've been out quite some time now... weird huh?
Last edited:
I was listening to Jason Whitlock fill in for Jim Rome on his radio show last Thursday(?). The theme of the entire three hours was about the state of newspapers and how they got there. I believe you could apply it to the national television media too.
Most "reporters" don't know how to do real journalism (i.e. the leg work). Instead most of them have their stories handed to them. Another point that was brought up it that they care more about the awards then they do about real reporting. Aslo the fact that since most papers are owned by a national conglomerate the actual reporting of local news has gon down hill. Which is one of the biggest reasons newspapers are dying.
Handgun type weapons were fail. They made 99 explosive devices, none of which actually exploded. Including a dry ice bomb which is like, we played with those in my aunt's pool for fun every summer. OMG CO2 noooooo!
They tried to ignite the propane tanks by shooting at them... Which doesnt work well, even with rifles, unless you have incendiary ammunition. Everyone who has tried it knows it. Then molotav cocktails, which were put out by the sprinkler system, because duh, every public building has a fire supression system.
The only reason they managed to kill as many people as they did was that no one resisted. If they got mobbed, or if a teacher had CCW it wouldve been incredibly different.
They werent masterminds of anything except writing whiny diaries.
Thought about typing out a critique but somehow posting something like that on the internet doesnt seem like a good idea.
I remember them blaming Stephen King for that.
They also don't realize there's no real connection between gun laws and violent crime (at least not one that supports their case). Mrs Burger and I disagree on this one every once in a while.
Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski
Clam whisperer
...
More people get shot in the states that in England per head a year. Because you have lots of guns. What's not to understand?
Gun laws do very little to keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them. Pretty straight forward fact. They do more to keep guns out of the hands of those who's intent is not to use them than those who intend to do so.
Dory Berkowitz-Bukowski
Clam whisperer
True. I suppose being able to have a gun, even if you're not violent, could mean that somebody gets shot, whereas there's no chance of that happening if nobody is really allowed them. And I suppose in a lot of countries you can have guns and the violent crimne rate is not so high, I think America would be rather the exception not the rule.
There are in fact more people in the united states than in the UK. 60 million UK residents vs 308 million US. 465 per 100,000 is the US average, for all violent crime, similar statistics are NOT available for the UK because of how the Home Office reports crimes (they only report on successful prosecutions, in the US it counts everyone charged with a crime). All I know was that in 1980 the US had 8.7 times the UK rate of violent crime and in 1991 it was 3.1 times....
More people get shot in the states that in England per head a year. Because you have lots of guns. What's not to understand?
The rate of violent crime in the US has been decreasing since the early 1970s though, in the UK it has been up every year since 1994.
The statistics related to getting 'shot' are skewed because it includes suicides and people shot by the police. The numbers of which are not relevant to a discussion on 'gun crime.' Yes, lots of people here get shot by the police because the police actually carry guns and generally shoot when their life is threatened.
Making firearms illegal just makes the people who legally possess them criminals. Criminals dont care if it's illegal or not.
The situation of automatic weapons is a perfect example of this. It is legal in 47 states to own a real live machine gun. Details of ownership non withstanding (they have to be locked up, they take your fingerprints, do a background check), only ONE crime has ever been committed with a legally owned automatic weapon and it was a police officer, with his department approved privately purchased one.