Could this reduce mass killings? (CNN, health care, Clinton, free speech)
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.
Many mass murderers seem to be drawn to a deranged fantasy of national attention, power, control and “going out in a blaze of glory.” As if on cue, the national press responds to these tragedies with round the clock coverage of the killer(s), victims, grieving families, first responders, outraged politicians, etc.
Are we rewarding these insane killers with exactly the attention they seek?
Could we regulate press coverage of these tragedies to only local media, for a period of 1 week? Perhaps if we “glorify” these events a little less, they will occur less frequently.
You can always tell a cut and paste dump because the font style is different. That said, no, restricting free speech is not the answer. The answer is to make sure guns don't end up in the wrong hands and to have greater access to mental health care.
Does that include postings on City Data? Can't mention Lee Harvey Oswald's name? After one week C-D mods should ban posts that mention Newtown, or things that Clinton or Bush did?
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,406,437 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recovering Democrat
Many mass murderers seem to be drawn to a deranged fantasy of national attention, power, control and “going out in a blaze of glory.” As if on cue, the national press responds to these tragedies with round the clock coverage of the killer(s), victims, grieving families, first responders, outraged politicians, etc.
Are we rewarding these insane killers with exactly the attention they seek?
Could we regulate press coverage of these tragedies to only local media, for a period of 1 week? Perhaps if we “glorify” these events a little less, they will occur less frequently.
Is this worth considering?
The 1st Amendment cannot be just thrown out any more than it can be done to the 2nd. It is all part of freedom of press. Although, both Amendments could be tightened up some by some good common sense. I agree though, CNN especially pissed me off with how they covered the tragedy.
Could we regulate press coverage of these tragedies to only local media, for a period of 1 week? Perhaps if we “glorify” these events a little less, they will occur less frequently.
Is this worth considering?
No. Ideally the media would collectively censor itself.
[but that's not going to happen because there's papers to be sold]
Good lord, so we should regulate the press but not guns?
The press should be held accountable for misrepresenting facts, or reporting based on bias.
If the story has merit it should be based on the facts.
Regulating guns. I have no issue with waiting periods and solid background checks.
I would also like to see doctors required to report patients who either communicate a threat or demonstrate that they are unstable leaning towards violence.
I do take issue with punishing people who have never violated the law or committed a violent act because a very very few people abused the public trust.
Should all phones be tapped because some use them to call in bomb threats? How about because some idiots can't drive and not talk on the cell phone?
It seems that after every mass killing you have people come out of the woodwork like roaches to comment how they knew the individual was dangerous. many times it will be the killer's shrink..
What about family members? They live with these worms. They know them and they know that the person is sick and twisted, but do nothing.
The 1st Amendment cannot be just thrown out any more than it can be done to the 2nd. It is all part of freedom of press. Although, both Amendments could be tightened up some by some good common sense. I agree though, CNN especially pissed me off with how they covered the tragedy.
What could be done is the government could say to the media that if they stop reporting the way that they do that the government will give them information on some other story. Or they could simply say that they would appreciate the news stations not reporting the way that they currently are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
The press should be held accountable for misrepresenting facts, or reporting based on bias.
Agreed. There was some sort of law on record before that had news stations to some sort of level of accountability but it was repealed.
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.
