Media Censorship ??

T

terzmo

New member
I thing the pro gun side has a bigger challenge than thought of. There was a shooting in Alabama, on school grounds, twp people shot, but an off duty security person stopped it after two injuries.

In the Buffalo NY area, this was reported on the news in the evening and once the next day. Now nada.

They still are reporting the Sandy Hook news.Referencing Colorado, Arizona, etc.

Am I missing somthing or is someone or some entity censoring the news ?

(and no, I don't see a commie behind every rock)
(they're behind the trees)
 
It depends on how you define censorship. I tend to think of it as an intentional blocking of someone trying to say something, like Google taking down a blog they disagree with. It's an active thing.

Most news producers wake up ever morning and think "How can I get the most viewers and, hence, the most advertising dollars while keeping my bosses happy?" It's a more passive decision to include things they think will get them more money, not an active decision to avoid a topic (though I'm sure some do, I can't believe that every TV producer in the US shares the same views)

Usually that means talking about the bloodiest horror they can find. Someone having their life saved is not going to get the same viewership numbers.

There's also more story with a crime. There's the investigation, possible suspects, arrests, why they did it, where they were eventually found, the trial, the conviction. Of course, there's also the victim's story and lots of shots of their family and friends crying. It's high drama.

With a self defense case (even of in a mass shooter incident), there is the event, a short investigation, and (hopefully) an acquittal. It's short, simple, and not emotional enough for TV viewers.
 
Usually that means talking about the bloodiest horror they can find. Someone having their life saved is not going to get the same viewership numbers.
Click to expand...

This!!!
Professional TV audiences like blood, gore and sensationalism. Most self defense situations are straight forward with little blood and gore.
 
It's only really censorship if the government is telling someone to alter or withhold information. Otherwise, it's just bias on the part of the outlet in question.
 
It's not just "professional TV audiences" that like blood.

Back in the late 1960s/early 1970s a friend of mine ran a modified stock car at a small, local track on Saturday nights. One week they had a rather spectacular accident in which a car's right front wheel hit the concrete barrier entering turn one just right so the car was launched. It literally flew over the safety fence and came down on its roof in the pits. Miraculously, the driver was only bruised, and nobody in the pits was injured.

The next week the paid attendance was three times that of an average Saturday's gate.

I had a friend (now passed on) who was a newspaper editor in the 1980s. Even then, when the Internet either hadn't yet been invented, or was in its infancy, he regularly bemoaned the need (and he recognized it as a need) to stress bad news over good. We discussed one day the then-recent demise of a short-lived attempt by someone to publish a good news-only newspaper. It didn't last a year. My friend's comment was simply, "Body count sells newspapers."
 
The classic reference is "if it bleeds, it leads..."

Our news is not being censored, it is being cherry picked. Remember that censorship comes from the govt. IF they tell you what you can, or cannot say, it is censorship.

If the editor, or the owner decides what is, or is not said, it is not censorship, it is a management decision. Remember that our public news is sold to us, by private corporations!!! NEVER FORGET THAT!!!!

They tell what sells, and fear sells. And they sell their agenda, as well. In addition to a heavy influence of ideologues and true believers pusing their social agendas there is also the simple fact that the more things are stirred up, the more people spend time (and money) watching and reading the news.

No matter how you slice it, that's good business, for them, anyway.:rolleyes:
 
It is very rare to have great video coverage of a person using a firearm (not necessarily fired) to save lives. With great video coverage of a hero saving even one life the event will appear in the media (including print media)repeatedly. It isn't censorship - it is attracting the audience and, therefore, sponsorship dollars. Several years ago a boat went over a dam in Des Moines, Iowa, and was trapped below the dam. A foot bridge was under construction above the dam. A worker was lowered from the bridge with a chain and his safety harness and was a able to grab a woman clinging to a PFD or throwable PFD and save her. Her husband drowned. Video crews got there in time to produce some spectacular video (still available on the internet) and still photography won a Pulitzer Prize.
 
Most news producers wake up ever morning and think "How can I get the most viewers and, hence, the most advertising dollars while keeping my bosses happy?" It's a more passive decision to include things they think will get them more money, not an active decision to avoid a topic (though I'm sure some do, I can't believe that every TV producer in the US shares the same views)

Usually that means talking about the bloodiest horror they can find. Someone having their life saved is not going to get the same viewership numbers.

There's also more story with a crime. There's the investigation, possible suspects, arrests, why they did it, where they were eventually found, the trial, the conviction. Of course, there's also the victim's story and lots of shots of their family and friends crying. It's high drama.
Click to expand...

I agree with the sensationalism of news. It is also very racist and sexist. I saw so many long episodes on cable news about dead young pretty women that I started calling the phenomena “Dead Blondes, Brunettes and Co-Ed’s”. It was apparent that attractive dead women boost the ratings. So do stories of attractive young women who kill their kids. These women get days/weeks/months of news coverage. Most particularly white women. Do your own Google News searches and there are plenty accounts of minority women, older women, committing the crimes or being murdered equally foul, and no video coverage.

“Journalists” and “News Producers” are ghouls that feed on the dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top