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.
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.
I have never called you or anyone else a "gun nut." Nor did I call you a RWNJ - but, if the shoe fits...
Still waiting for you to tell us about those non mainstream media "multiple sources," where you get your really credible info....
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.
It's called a discussion. The questions are met with defensiveness and advice to email the newspaper for more information. We are trying to have a discussion here, not looking for advice or insults.
@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.
I TOTALLY agree. I mean, we've been treated to photos of "jumpers" ad nauseum, photos of charred Americans' bodies hanging from bridges with people dancing beneath them, photos of bloodied CHILDREN climbing desperately out of windows at Columbine, the bloated bodies of women floating in the streets of New Orleans, CHILDREN being swallowed by tsunamis, etc. And don't even get me started on Daniel Pearl or all the horrible videos one can find of actual events on YouTube.
I'm not saying that the media SHOULD publish those photos or videos - what I'm saying is that media or NO media, onlookers with cell phones take photos and videos, whether it's tasteful or not. I have a friend whose husband was killed in a fiery accident. Someone videoed the accident and guess what - they ran it on the local news over and over and over again. Everytime my friend turned on the news, she risked having to watch her husband burned alive.
Sheeze.
So my point is - there's such an absence of photos and videos from the media AND onlookers. Don't even tell me that parents waiting in a room of hundreds of other parents don't think to take photos - sadly, there are people even in that horrible scenario who would take photos that would show crowds of parents. Same with the kids being taken out of the school. It's a sad truth that even in the most horrible situations, in this digital age, people somehow have the presence of mind (or lack of it) to actually take photos and videos. Then they sell them, and the media runs them. It's the nature of the game.
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.
Why do you want to make it hard for me to see your list? That doesn't make sense. You want us to believe that your ONLY concern is the inconsistencies in reporting, yet when given the opportunity to make that point again, you tell me to go look for it in this thread?
I'm saying that it seems to me that this concern about the inconsistencies and "holes" in the reporting of this story is just a smoke screen to confuse people and provide some justification for attacking the White House and the MANY VARIOUS MEMBERS of the media (the "media" is NOT a vast monolithic ONE which is controlled by a monolithic "government").
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.
This is the post to which I was responding:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy Yeah, because we all know that the mainstream media is the only credible news source. They have been doing such a stellar job to earn that title.
As you can plainly see, Dorthy was the Original Poster (OP) of this post. In the post she is clearly dissing the mainstream media - and not for the first time.
Kathryn, the above is a question I'd like to see answered too. It has nothing to do with photographs of murdered children, etc., which you complain about. It's a very good question, and I'm sure many of us would like to see where you get your news which you rely upon.
I've already answered that question - I guess you missed it. You can go back and scroll through this thread if you like to find it. I'm not going to repeat myself.
Why do you want to make it hard for me to see your list? That doesn't make sense. You want us to believe that your ONLY concern is the inconsistencies in reporting, yet when given the opportunity to make that point again, you tell me to go look for it in this thread?
I'm saying that it seems to me that this concern about the inconsistencies and "holes" in the reporting of this story is just a smoke screen to confuse people and provide some justification for attacking the White House and the MANY VARIOUS MEMBERS of the media (the "media" is NOT a vast monolithic ONE which is controlled by a monolithic "government").
I haven't attacked the White House.
I'm an Independent that voted for Obama.
I favor gun control.
I've posted links that support the families and victims of Sandy Hook. I completely believe that a shooting took place, people lost their children and that it was one of the worst tragedies our nation has ever seen. I've posted a story about Veronique Pozner talking about her son, a story that touched my heart for it's integrity and honesty.
Yet, I still think the way the media covered this story was botched, hurried and unethical. I think they really dropped the ball on this and the confusion you see in many people is the direct result of the media's lack of integrity when it came to reporting this story.
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.
You're mad because I agreed with another poster?
This is the post to which I was responding:
They have been doing such a stellar job to earn that title.
