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.
@Kathryn: I think the reason why people are so skeptical of the media reporting is because their behaviors have been uncharacteristic as we've come to know them in times of tragedy. We are talking about the same institution that had no issue broadcasting NYers jumping to their deaths on 9/11/01, showing photos of dead Americans in Fallujah, drowning victims in New Orleans, etc. Now, all of the sudden, the media becomes modest? I don't buy it. That certainly doesn't mean I believe in a mass conspiracy/hoax. I just think there is a very definite reason for the dearth of coverage.
How about a link to your two very long lists of questions? Did you cite the inconsistencies in reporting, or were these just questions you felt were not answered by the reporting?
I've seen no "bizzare" accusations from Ray toward you.
They are in the thread. I don't need to go back and look for them for you. One of them was posted today. Same for ray's posts calling me a gun nut (or lover or something like that) and a rwnj.
You have the right to question my questions. You also have the right to answer my questions. Furthermore, you have the right to say anything you absolutely desire to say to me - no matter how off topic or baseless. The question is why would you.
It bothers me that, instead of engaging in any type of civil dialogue, you & others have chosen to belittle and attack. It has been my experience that those who do the latter often lack anything of substance in regards to contributions to a conversation.
IOW, if the premises of statements put forth are so easy to debunk/answer, why not just do it and dispense with the nastiness?
People have repeatedly offered explanations and reasons for the inconsistencies in reporting throughout this thread. Suggestions about how to find more information have been offered. Seems that all that been ignored or ridiculed. So the question is: Why do you all want to just continue to ask the same questions over and over and over again without pursuing answers, unless your questions are really all you want to put out there? As I said, it sort of looks like a smoke screen to me with the motive being to confuse wherever possible.
Really? They were all allowed to walk up to the school when they got there? So all reporters carry around expensive cameras super zoom lenses? Wow. I thought it was photo journalists who did that.
Did it ever occur to you all that maybe even "reporters" thought twice about photographing kids that age and plastering their pictures all over the place?
I think what is most offensive about this thread is that the whole story is about tiny little kids who were slaughtered, yet, some are trying to use this horrific event to attack the White House and the many, many various members of the media for their reaction to the violence inflicted by a gun. It's like trying to throw up a smoke screen to confuse people. It's all smoke and mirrors, and that's what makes it really offensive to most people at a gut level.
My reaction to the smoke and mirrors given by the media is a gut level reaction and I'm offended by the BS. And yes, reporters could walk up to the school. There are some photos proving that to be true.
I've never made the categorical claim that the news I read/see/hear is not true, so I am not obligated to provide a counter source. The OP has sneered at the "mainstream media" - and those who use it for sources of info - in many posts in this single thread. I think it is fair to ask her where she gets her "incredibly credible news," since she has indicated that she clearly recognizes the news from "mainstream media" to be not credible.
I'm the OP, Ray.
I use the mainstream media for SOME of my news sources as well. In fact, I've listed some of the sources I use. I've never sneered at people who use such sources. What I have criticized is anyone who would simply hear a story from a mainstream media source, or a politician, and simply believe the account is accurate - in spite of the fact that many aspects of the event have been reported inconsistently and inaccurately by those same sources over and over again.
You have the right to question my questions. You also have the right to answer my questions. Furthermore, you have the right to say anything you absolutely desire to say to me - no matter how off topic or baseless. The question is why would you.
It bothers me that, instead of engaging in any type of civil dialogue, you & others have chosen to belittle and attack. It has been my experience that those who do the latter often lack anything of substance in regards to contributions to a conversation.
IOW, if the premises of statements put forth are so easy to debunk/answer, why not just do it and dispense with the nastiness?
This is a public forum in which people have discussions. I will express my opinions however I see fit as long as they are within the TOS. I do not see anything "odd" about the media's coverage of the Sandy Hook tragedy however those who do have not been able to articulate their concerns rationally and reasonably. And have ignored logically explanations to their questions.
I do not need a lecture from someone who takes issue with the fact that I firmly disagree with their position on this (or any) topic. You have made several snarky comments directed specifically at me in this thread (including the above). I take ownership of my occasional "snark"...do you?
Firstly, I am not a "Dude." Secondly, YOU were the OP of the post in question. Thirdly, you have verbally sneered at the "mainstream media" and those who read/watch/listen to it in multiple posts. We, the sneerees, are curious about your sources of information. You discredit the veracity of the MM, so please tell us of these "multiple sources" from which you gather your more credible information.
The conversation about the msm was twisted from the start. I get my news from a wide variety of sources, incuding NBC, ABC, PBS, alternet, mother jones, village voice, etc., etc, etc. This entire thread exists due to a lack of integrity in the MSM. Is that really difficult to understand?
This is a public forum in which people have discussions. I will express my opinions however I see fit as long as they are within the TOS. I do not see anything "odd" about the media's coverage of the Sandy Hook tragedy and those who do have don't been able to articulate their concerns rationally.
I do not need a lecture from someone who takes issue with the fact that I firmly disagree with their position on this (or any) topic. You have made several snarky comments directed specifically at me in this thread (including the above). I take ownership of my occasional "snark"...do you?
Of course I take ownership of my snark. I'm quite proud of it, thankyouverymuch. I do see something quite odd about the coverage, especially when compared with other national tragedies of the same ilk.
@Kathryn: I think the reason why people are so skeptical of the media reporting is because their behaviors have been uncharacteristic as we've come to know them in times of tragedy. We are talking about the same institution that had no issue broadcasting NYers jumping to their deaths on 9/11/01, showing photos of dead Americans in Fallujah, drowning victims in New Orleans, etc. Now, all of the sudden, the media becomes modest? I don't buy it. That certainly doesn't mean I believe in a mass conspiracy/hoax. I just think there is a very definite reason for the dearth of coverage.
Exactly!
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.
I do see something quite odd about the coverage, especially when compared with other national tragedies of the same ilk.