Media has become scum
This post is not going to be about the usual problems with mainstream media, I'm sure many of us know by now that they will do anything for more views than their competitors without caring if it's fake news or not. This is about the lengths that some go to just to bring in a new "hot" story that is potentially graphic and they know brings in a lot of attention. Now I don't want to blame the people who do the work, as they're employed and just doing what they need to do to maintain that job and make a living off of it, but it is becoming pretty disgusting seeing things like these.
I stumbled upon a video through reddit recently that linked to Twitter where there was a fight happening which resulted in the guy getting beat up pulling out his gun and started shooting. The video is not that graphic and you can't really see if he missed or not, but if you want to check it out here is the tweet: https://twitter.com/mo_melchor/status/1208467161502515200
What I want to bring to attention though is this part in the tweet:
It's like vultures waiting for the next feast. They know that these kind of scenes bring in the most viewers and their bosses probably have them search through the internet for the next fix. It's just kind of sad in my opinion seeing the way people behave and what they decide to show in their "news". Reminds me of the times when some really big shootings happen and the media trying to one up eachother and keep their viewers with them keep bringing attention to things they really shouldn't such as the amount of lives lost and injured. "18 dead and 50 wounded" written in big letters as the main title to news segments and then a whole backstory of the killer and his name everywhere. Imagine how fucked up that is, now imagine if you knew one of the victims and how that would make you feel.
Oh, your husband died in that attack? Here's the killers face in every news channel and magazine for the next couple weeks until the next attack, enjoy!
It's really disgusting, reminds me of the story of that one sheriff that asked media not to name a school shooter because it is in some way enabling these deranged people to "go out swinging", i.e. wanting to become infamous before they die and attempting to do as much damage as the last one did. Why wouldn't they when that's what the media focuses on, it's becoming like this sick leaderboard.
I actually found the article I had in mind if you want to read it, it is definitely worth a read: (warning: you have to pause adblocker to be able to read the article) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/02/media-please-ignore-oregon-sheriffs-appeal-never-to-mention-shooters-name/
but here are some quotes and tweets from it:
Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin yesterday issued a direct request to the media yesterday following the mass killing at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore. “I will not name the shooter. I will not give him the credit he probably sought prior to this horrific and cowardly act. … We would encourage media and the community to avoid using [the name]. We encourage you to not repeat it. We encourage you not to glorify and create sensationalism for him.”
Here's a tweet about it where someone says naming should be done but sparingly
Although I realize that this article and the shooting in question happened a long time ago, I don't see this having gotten better in recent years. Media is still pushing the buttons to see what they can get away with, because there's little that they can't while at the same time just trying to one up each other in how much "info" they have and how fast their reporters can get that info for their "exclusives" and "only on X" as if it's a great feat to be the first to ask someone permission to view their video they posted on social media.
I remember this case where there was a school shooting and a kid who was hiding in classrooms during the shooting posted about it on twitter or facebook and a "journalist" started blasting him with questions like "how many are dead?", "who is the shooter, do you know him?", etc. The comments in that thread were something like "dude, it's still ongoing, back the fuck off" but it gives you a sense of how these vultures have no limits.
I guess it's just a consequence of a bigger problem. We're seeing newsletters die off, tv die off and everyone moving onto the internets so these news agencies have to adapt, some are doing a good job at it while others are having to pull a few dirty strings to remain relevant.
Ugh, I hate what the internet is becoming. I hope the new one won't make the same mistakes.
MSM is just a business now, like a whore for politicians and businesses and doesn't truly say the real news, they make stories for their own interests, it happens here in my country.
What new one? Where is? Tell me, I’ve been waiting for it for almost a decade I think. Tell me where.
Tbh this was always the case. Yellow journalism was arguably worse, not that it has fully disappeared either. Print sales of old weren’t different from an industry dominated by ever lower advertising rate cards/eCPM. The public platforms which make it happen now just brought it to our attention on a larger scale. But paparazzi and journos hunting stories by calling, visiting subjects for days, weeks weren’t/aren’t different.
The biggest problem is that news is mostly only monetized by views. Views equate advertising sales. So whether you pay premium subscription rates, for platforms like De Correspondent (Netherlands), who also make a lot of revenue from events, or... it’s what happens and always has.
Yeah, it's disgusting and it's also an agenda. Gun control is a hot topic so anything that includes a gun or shooting is going to get a huge amount of coverage.
Every time the gun control topic comes up, we have millions of dollars in donations to the NRA and to the Left's gun lobby, so it is also big business in alone. Once the Left stir up a conversation the Right donate to their candidates themselves. It's the perfect circle of greed, manufactured problems and hot topic fights.
MsM has zero to do with actually unearthing any sort of information it’s all about sensationalism, polarization and clicks! All they want to to is sell views for ad space and they only have one trick to do it.
There are enough suckers each day who fall for this rubbish so they will keep doing it until it becomes unsustainable
The media are ambulance chasers and drama from nothing makers. Anything for clicks, the only metric they use to indicate the value.
It brings to mind the song "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley of The Eagles. Absolute vultures.
They were always scummy it's just more visible now.
"has become"? Better change to "still is".
Posted using Partiko Android
Their getting paid big-time to encourage fear in society. By fear - they control us. It's sad but we must do everything in our power to stay true to each other and unveil their plans.
All around good points. The problem isn't as much with the news as human nature. Our society has been so sanitized deep down inside many humans crave for carnal news and click the stories. Do you blame the prostitutes (media) or the John's (content consumers)?
Both I guess.
Just another place where being a business and in it for profit means becoming the evil they wanted to avert. This goes across all parts of culture, from health care to politics to media to box stores. Money has been heralded as the end all be all of our existence and its corrupting abilities are far too powerful for mere humans. Greed seems to be the primary driving force in current culture and the backwards media.
I agree with a few points:
But, I sort of disagree on the notion that media shouldn't talk about these tragedies / mention shooters. In the shooter's context, I want to know the name & identity of the individuals that commit these horrific events. I want to know why they did it.
Each tragic event that happens, gives us data. If we start hiding the name & background on these people, we begin losing that data. I think this data is important so that, hopefully sometime soon, we'll have a big enough set to analyze and see what the most common, underlying cause is for these people to do this shit. Or, maybe we'll learn a very hard lesson: there is no common cause.
Either way, I'm not typically in favor of news being censored.
It's not about hiding the names, it's about not making their names one of the main points of their stories. Time after time again the showcase their names as if they're famous while the victims remain nameless and forgotten.
So just to see if we're on the same page, how do you feel about a news organization making the victims the focal point of the story, with a straight-forward non-sensationalized headline, but somewhere within the article they mention the shooter and possible motivations (as long as they make damn clear that these would just be theories, and not facts)?
It would be better than whatever is happening now, or you know, not make it into the news at all, there's so much other stuff that goes missing just cause tragedies in first world countries are considered more "important".
I get what you mean. Tons of similar tragedies happening in places we never hear / think about. I guess the ideology behind this notion is something along the lines of "Oh my! How could such an advanced & civilized society suffer such a barbaric event!"
Truth is, it doesn't matter how civilized your society is, it doesn't matter how many 5G towers you have, it doesn't matter how many self-driving cars are picking up food for people, in the end we're all just slightly more competent apes... :^)
Proof you are wrong: school shootings. The Columbine tragedy served as inspiration for other crimes during the following years. I.e.:
source
For most of the people who are in the news business, they are high functioning psychopaths that love to tell other people what to think/what to believe. They are the ultimate controllers of information flow and have immense power in brainwashing.
They are cold, calculating, and will do anything they can to get ahead or put out information on something.
A good movie that highlights how unethical and fucked up the news business is is that Night Crawler movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightcrawler_(film)
Nightcrawler (film)
Nightcrawler is a 2014 American neo-noir thriller film written and directed by Dan Gilroy in his feature directorial debut. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom, a stringer who records violent events late at night in Los Angeles and sells the footage to a local television news station. Rene Russo, Riz Ahmed, and Bill Paxton also star. A common theme in the film is the symbiotic relationship between unethical journalism and consumer demand.
Amateur non-profit journalism is the only way to go lately.
!COFFEEA
!shop
for you
你好鸭，felipejoys!
@eii给您叫了一份外卖！
由 @hertz300 小Q 迎着暴雨 骑着熊熊 给您送来
南瓜糕
吃饱了吗？跟我猜拳吧！ 石头，剪刀，布～
如果您对我的服务满意，请不要吝啬您的点赞～
@onepagex