News Coverage Glamourizes Heinous Crimes!

K

KMAX

New member
I think much of the news coverage glamourizes mass shootings and other heinous crimes in the minds of losers and makes them want to commit an even more heinous act so they can be more famous or infamous than the last guy. Forget these nuts. Don't glorify them and build up their egos. Also, don't make excuses for them.

What sparked this rant is a report on Fox news of firefighters and police reporting to a car and house fire in Webster, NY and being fired upon. Two firemen were killed.

Does anyone else think the media is partially responsible for promoting terrible crime?
 
Could be a factor.

Canada has a good policy.
No, not gun registration, barrel length limits, or magazine capacity limits,
I mean the policy that a killer get NO publicity. His name is not released, you don't get interviews with family who think he was a nice boy, or acquaintances who call him a loner, nothing.
 
Does anyone else think the media is partially responsible for promoting terrible crime?
Click to expand...

No. To me, it's like blaming a gun for the actions of the individual. The shooters are responsible. There are, however, spoon feeding the public hysteria by the manner in which these things are being covered, especially lately.
It used to be that the names of gangs were never mentioned in news reports, because it was thought that they fed off the publicity. I still don't think that absolves the gang's total responsibility for their actions...but not mentioning their name is a good idea I believe. A loser by any other name is still a loser.
 
I am not saying the event should not be reported, but that it should be reported more responsibly. Don't give publicity to criminals and losers. Just saw another thing on Fox asking if reporters are partially responsible and they were quick to defend 1A which I also defend. 2A and 1A are both very valuable, but both should be used with responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility.
 
Sure all the media coverage and naming the perp emboldens other crazies who want their name placed down in history. Why do you think they always choose public places where folks are the most vulnurable? If the media would quit making these events a circus they would be over with one bullet and the shooter would use it on themselves most of the time.
 
Gangmembers are killing each other every day in the US and the names of the gangs are not published. I think the media is just ANTI-GUN and will continue until they feel they have accomplished the task of banning guns.
 
Webster, NY seems to be the latest story of this genre. Very sad, but shooter was convicted felon not allowed to posses firearms, so outlawing firearms would have no effect since he was already in violation of the law.
 
Ran across this piece of journalistic excellence today.
Seems this paper and it's website have created a map showing the names and addresses of legal gun owners in that area.

Few things they overlooked:

A reporter, Dwight R. Worley, who wrote another anti-gun piece this map was attached to....owns a S&W 686. To be fair, that's disclosed on the site in an editor's note. But...they left his name and address off their little map. I've already emailed the man and pointed out that several sites have already posted his info, hope it's correct and he should gather the courage up to publish his name and address on the site and map. Doubt that's going to happen.

They also included the names and addresses of "Inactive Permit Holders". Here's the big problem I see with that. That inactive permit holder may no longer live there and an unarmed person may now be. So should some nutcase pick that address to break into in order to obtain a firearm...well, it might not be a good outcome.

I found this little stunt of theirs to be disgusting, hypocritical due to their own reporter's absence from the map and potentially dangerous to people who can't even defend themselves beyond praying the local police get there in time.
I don't agree that media can be blamed or held responsible for reporting the news...even in a truly tasteless or biased manner. But to create a possible scenario where someone could end up becoming the victim of crime is totally inexcusable.
 
I agree with bumnote, the media seems to think that the gun itself committed the crime in a shooting, when really the blame should be on the person using it. As we all know, a gun only does what the person controlling it makes it do. So on that note I think we need people control, not gun control.
 
SC4006: Gun control is the first step to people control possibly. People control is what dictatorial governments want. The term "people control" sounds somewhat 1984ish. I agree that our society has gotten out of control, but for the government to control the people is a scary idea. They are supposed to work for us. Society needs to control itself. Governments are a necessary evil, unfortunately they are usually more evil than necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top