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.
I'd like to know why the media reported it without doing the very basic job of confirming with an independent source first. You should care too.
Because that's how it is with this 24 hr news cycle we have now. And no one accepts, "further details as they become available". The public wants everything NOW. So they sometimes go with stuff that later turns out not to be true.
The media reported it, the POTUS commented on it. How does that entitle you to be privy to the details of the investigation before they are made public?
Go to freaking snopes. . .it explains about everything you care to know.
SHe used to be a teacher. . .did she voulteer at the school? Thats what I heard. . .not 100% for sure at this point. But it makes since that she is a retired teacher who voulteered at the school. . confusion or misspeaking is pretty easy here.
Here is the thing. . the media has a job. Yet their job isn't to confirm or not-confirm the absurd. They know very well if they give voice to some of these absurd allegations that people will just spread the allegations. They know that you won't be convinced no matter what. So the media focuses on the facts, and not your pet crazy theories.
Seems like a smart tactic
Their job is to report accurate news to inform the population. They are failing miserably. Part of their job IS to confirm facts independently before reporting.
BTW, it is quite clear that you have not read this thread. If you did you wouldn't be accusing ME of being a conspiracy theorist.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
Words of wisdom and very relevant to this discussion.
The quote from the Guy's video clip same link as above:
Quote:
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
I almost hesitate to post this, knowing that the completely vile posters on this thread will rip Connecticut to shreds faster that you can say "gun fetish," but some people seem mildly interested in what's actually going on, as opposed to the gun fetishists whose only interest is in defending their sick obsession at the expense of people who have suffered more than any of us should ever have to.
So for those who are still sane, I thought you would be interested in this.
Because that's how it is with this 24 hr news cycle we have now. And no one accepts, "further details as they become available". The public wants everything NOW. So they sometimes go with stuff that later turns out not to be true.
That is a cop out. The media needs to do the right thing, not the convenient/easy thing. The media has an obligation to our country and to democracy to be a trusted institution that distributes information. Information which influences public policy.
A local news story is interesting to me because I see some of the same questions and issues about the media coverage that I see with Sandy Hook.
Last week, there was a horrific accident on a very busy road close by, on a stretch of that highway which has been the site of many fatal accidents.
There is no turn lane, there are a couple of hills in both directions, businesses line the road (it's a rural road coming into a small town), and the speed limit is 70. Yes, recipe for disaster, which happens pretty regularly there. In fact, that road is so dangerous that even though it's the straightest shot from my town to a larger metro area, I go out of my way to avoid driving on it.
One evening last week, a person in an SUV was trying to turn left into a business. A vehicle rear ended her and the woman who rearended the SUV was injured and trapped in her car. Two men coming out of two different businesses heard her screaming for help and they ran to try to push her car out of the road. Another vehicle came along and hit them, killing both of them.
A local television station was on the scene quickly, and reported the accident pretty accurately. However, in the next news release (more info on a developing story), they had changed the terminology to say that the woman in the car that was rear ended was "experiencing car trouble" and the men went out to help her. Right. Yes, she was having car trouble - she had just topped a hill going the speed limit, hadn't had time to avoid rearending the car stopped in the middle of her lane trying to turn left, and she wrecked her car. But the term "car trouble" doesn't imply that there had already been ONE WRECK caused by the terrible road conditions, and within just minutes ANOTHER wreck happened, which killed two nice men who were only trying to help someone.
This wreck has caused a public outcry for local officials and municipalities to correct the conditions that cause so many accidents in that small stretch of highway.
Other media sources are correctly reporting the events. This "news station" (and I use that term loosely) is STILL reporting it as "car trouble" when it's clearly much more than that. WHY? Why are they insisting on watering down the main reasons for the accident? There is a reason. I don't know why. But I want to know why. I think we should "follow the money" on that line of questioning, as a starting point or one avenue of research into why there's been a shift in how the story is being reported by this media outlet.
There's no doubt in my mind that the accidents and fatalities occurred, and I don't think that there's any sort of conspiracy that CAUSED the accident - but I want to know WHY the news accounts differ after the fact. What reason could there be? This doesn't mean I'm a conspiracy theorist, or paranoid, but it does mean that I rightly question the motives of news sources.
See the parallels?
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.
