Brady campaign actually does something sensible ?

Guns are often featured in the news media. Here you can post links to such news items and discuss them.

Brady campaign actually does something sensible ?

Postby gravedancer » Wed 04 May 2016 5:40 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/27/media/c ... _tech_pool

This might be the one time that the brady bunch got it right, although it was probably by accident. Ive said for a long time that the insane level of media coverage that gets attached to any mass shooting may in effect be grooming the perpetrator of the next such tragedy. I know that getting media outlets to forgo naming the perp is unrealistic, though there are a few that have done so, but maybe if an app like this gets popular enough the message might get out there that slaughtering a bunch of innocents isnt going to get you a few minutes of fame.
Image
http://bit.ly/2vHUiug will get you around the auto filtering of the domain on this site
gravedancer
Sniper
 
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2011 1:46 pm

Re: Brady campaign actually does something sensible ?

Postby quychang » Wed 04 May 2016 5:54 pm

I most definitely agree with you there. You're right, it probably won't change mainstream media. But it should.

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT

Re: Brady campaign actually does something sensible ?

Postby bagpiper » Wed 04 May 2016 7:20 pm

What utterly disgusts me is that the media figured this out decades ago with the streakers at pro sporting events. A lot of stupid college kids were more than willing to take the fairly minor penalties associated with disorderly conduct, trespassing, public lewdness or whatever other charges came from streaking across a football field, as long as they got their 15 seconds of fame with their face (and butt) on the jumbotron and national TV.

Interrupting ball games cuts into ad revenue and hits the networks in the pocketbooks.

So they quickly figured out that if they denied the streakers any and all publicity there were far fewer kids who had any real interest in interrupting the ball game. The same policy continues today even though streaking has gone out of vogue. On the rare occasion some idiot runs onto the field or otherwise disrupts the game, the cameras cut immediately to the control announcers. They just say, "There is a disruption on the field, but we're not going to give any publicity to it. We'll be back from this commercial break in just a moment."

But when it comes to mass shootings, flag desecration, or other such conduct (whether legal or criminal) that a civil society really doesn't need to be encouraging, those same networks act as if the public's "right to know" every gory detail actually transcends any responsibility the networks might have not to encourage or promote similar conduct in the future.

It would be all but impossible to censor cable networks. But I do think the government could (and maybe should) impose some standards for how much publicity is given to perpetrators of mass shootings when it comes to use of the public airwaves (either terrestrial or satellite broadcasts). I know that is a dicey area and there are risks. But we have managed for a long time to limit the use of profanity/vulgarity and to keep some limit on nudity and sexual conduct across the broadcast networks without it turning into government censorship of information the public needs to know. So I think it could be done. But I think there are those who prefer a good crisis to exploit over saving innocent lives.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: Brady campaign actually does something sensible ?

Postby quychang » Wed 04 May 2016 10:09 pm

bagpiper wrote:

It would be all but impossible to censor cable networks. But I do think the government could (and maybe should) impose some standards for how much publicity is given to perpetrators of mass shootings when it comes to use of the public airwaves (either terrestrial or satellite broadcasts). I know that is a dicey area and there are risks. But we have managed for a long time to limit the use of profanity/vulgarity and to keep some limit on nudity and sexual conduct across the broadcast networks without it turning into government censorship of information the public needs to know. So I think it could be done. But I think there are those who prefer a good crisis to exploit over saving innocent lives.

Charles


I have to say I agree with every word you posted. But I wanted to add a comment, primarily on your last sentence. The people that prefer that are unfortunately the ones making the decisions. "If it bleeds, it leads." Is a longtime aphorism of the papers, and having grown out of that the national networks. If you must, I don't think you do, but "if" you must, have private news networks. Subscription services such as HBO that aren't as restrictive of violence, nudity, or language. Go nuts there. Within some boundaries of good taste. But in the meantime we need to do two things. Convince news agencies that it is a problem, and perhaps restrict advertising dollars aimed at those stories. We did so with tobacco and alcohol, and the advertisers are at least a part of the problem. Short of that, convince people that those advertisers need to be boycotted or in some way sanctioned.

Mel
The last thing I want to do is shoot anyone, but it's on the list...
User avatar
quychang
Sniper
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Fri 20 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Roy, UT


Return to Guns in the News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron