I guess buzzfeed is not afraid of calling a spade, a spade. Is it just me, or are “normal” news sources afraid of telling stories like this because they may sound partisan? Do you agree with my...
I guess buzzfeed is not afraid of calling a spade, a spade. Is it just me, or are “normal” news sources afraid of telling stories like this because they may sound partisan?
Do you agree with my assessment of this media conundrum? If so, isn’t this a major problem?
True journalism is apolitical. News that is presented succiently and factually allows and requires the room to think for your opinion. The "normal" or professional journalists are afraid of...
True journalism is apolitical. News that is presented succiently and factually allows and requires the room to think for your opinion.
The "normal" or professional journalists are afraid of cramming the negative attributes of the perpetrator into a headline when the crime itself is infinitely more heinous.
They're afraid to contribute to a insidious pattern of politicizing a tragedy for profit.
That does make some sense, but shouldn’t the context of a murder’s mentality be brought up? I do see both sides of this issue, if a mad man happened to have political views of XYZ, and just...
That does make some sense, but shouldn’t the context of a murder’s mentality be brought up? I do see both sides of this issue, if a mad man happened to have political views of XYZ, and just randomly murdered his girlfriend, then I can see why not to sensationalize it with unnecessary background. But if the murder is inline with the killer’s political views, and was done for those same apparently no other reasons... isn’t that the major part of the story?
This isn't a new issue. High quality news sources prioritize informing the reader in a thoughtful and useful way over using anger because they fail when held accountable to standards. All the...
But if the murder is inline with the killer’s political views, and was done for those same reasons... isn’t that the major part of the story?
This isn't a new issue. High quality news sources prioritize informing the reader in a thoughtful and useful way over using anger because they fail when held accountable to standards.
All the information is still there, the difference is how you convey it.
actually no, here's a better way of putting this: if you are a news agency, it is not possible to be apolitical. you are selectively picking and choosing what your readers or viewers get to see...
actually no, here's a better way of putting this: if you are a news agency, it is not possible to be apolitical. you are selectively picking and choosing what your readers or viewers get to see and hear from around the world, and no matter how "unbiased" or "nonpartisan" or "democratic" as you try to be with that process of picking and choosing, you are ultimately consciously or unconsciously adding an element of politics both into what you report and how you report it, but also what the viewer or reader of your agency sees and hears. you cannot get around this. it is not possible to be apolitical, no matter how hard you try. there is no such thing as apolitical journalism.
A similar article turned up on my very "normal" news site here in Australia, and it cites the Miami Herald as its source. I don't think this story is quite as hidden as you're implying.
A similar article turned up on my very "normal" news site here in Australia, and it cites the Miami Herald as its source.
I don't think this story is quite as hidden as you're implying.
I’ve never seen anything like that NYT piece before, not from a major publisher at least. That feels like a landmark article to me. But if you have any links to other major media pieces that lay...
I’ve never seen anything like that NYT piece before, not from a major publisher at least. That feels like a landmark article to me. But if you have any links to other major media pieces that lay it all out like that, I’d love to read them! But maybe tomorrow, my blood pressure can only get so high right now. It hasn’t been like this for a long time. I am pretty pissed off.
I don't store them for future reading! It's not like I have thousands of bookmarks of everything I've read, or like I've memorised the titles and sources of everything I've read. Like a lot of...
But if you have any links to other major media pieces that lay it all out like that,
I don't store them for future reading! It's not like I have thousands of bookmarks of everything I've read, or like I've memorised the titles and sources of everything I've read. Like a lot of articles, I read them once, absorb what I need, then move on.
But I have seen other articles talking about alt-right terrorism in the USA, and how white nationalists have produced more domestic terrorists than any other group. This is far from the first time I've seen this discussed.
Thanks, I was wondering if maybe I just did not manage to see all of the stories somehow, after I wrote that. However, I still feel like this social phenomenon needs constant attention. People are...
Thanks, I was wondering if maybe I just did not manage to see all of the stories somehow, after I wrote that. However, I still feel like this social phenomenon needs constant attention. People are making money by pushing this entire white-male victomhood agenda, and it has lethal consequences.
I have to say that this reminds me of the shootings murders at a screening of the movie Trainwreck, and also the lack of calling out far-right, misogynist violence in the media. Edit: Btw, why...
Edit: Btw, why does even Wikipedia call these events “shootings” and not “murders?” I used to shoot in my backyard, and the two events are not related. The normalization of gun murder in the USA has even permeated the English language on Wikipedia.
Edit2: I just realized that I had tagged this topic with “shooting” and not “murder.” I fell for the normalization myself.
And I've changed that tag to "mass shooting" because that's what we're using to describe these events here on Tildes. Remember that it's not only about the number of people killed, but also about...
I just realized that I had tagged this topic with “shooting” and not “murder.” I fell for the normalization myself.
And I've changed that tag to "mass shooting" because that's what we're using to describe these events here on Tildes. Remember that it's not only about the number of people killed, but also about the fact that the perpetrator went to a place with a lot of people and then shot a lot of people. In this case, Mr Beierl allegedly shot 7 people even though only 2 died. That makes it a mass shooting, even if it's not a mass murder.
I guess buzzfeed is not afraid of calling a spade, a spade. Is it just me, or are “normal” news sources afraid of telling stories like this because they may sound partisan?
Do you agree with my assessment of this media conundrum? If so, isn’t this a major problem?
True journalism is apolitical. News that is presented succiently and factually allows and requires the room to think for your opinion.
The "normal" or professional journalists are afraid of cramming the negative attributes of the perpetrator into a headline when the crime itself is infinitely more heinous.
They're afraid to contribute to a insidious pattern of politicizing a tragedy for profit.
"Apolitical" news is just political news that favors the status quo.
That does make some sense, but shouldn’t the context of a murder’s mentality be brought up? I do see both sides of this issue, if a mad man happened to have political views of XYZ, and just randomly murdered his girlfriend, then I can see why not to sensationalize it with unnecessary background. But if the murder is inline with the killer’s political views, and was done for
those sameapparently no other reasons... isn’t that the major part of the story?This isn't a new issue. High quality news sources prioritize informing the reader in a thoughtful and useful way over using anger because they fail when held accountable to standards.
All the information is still there, the difference is how you convey it.
actually no, here's a better way of putting this: if you are a news agency, it is not possible to be apolitical. you are selectively picking and choosing what your readers or viewers get to see and hear from around the world, and no matter how "unbiased" or "nonpartisan" or "democratic" as you try to be with that process of picking and choosing, you are ultimately consciously or unconsciously adding an element of politics both into what you report and how you report it, but also what the viewer or reader of your agency sees and hears. you cannot get around this. it is not possible to be apolitical, no matter how hard you try. there is no such thing as apolitical journalism.
A similar article turned up on my very "normal" news site here in Australia, and it cites the Miami Herald as its source.
I don't think this story is quite as hidden as you're implying.
Well, I’ll be.... front page of the NYT..
U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It.
And that's not the first time I've seen an article saying something like this. Maybe you're just looking for hate in all the wrong places. ;)
I’ve never seen anything like that NYT piece before, not from a major publisher at least. That feels like a landmark article to me. But if you have any links to other major media pieces that lay it all out like that, I’d love to read them! But maybe tomorrow, my blood pressure can only get so high right now. It hasn’t been like this for a long time. I am pretty pissed off.
I don't store them for future reading! It's not like I have thousands of bookmarks of everything I've read, or like I've memorised the titles and sources of everything I've read. Like a lot of articles, I read them once, absorb what I need, then move on.
But I have seen other articles talking about alt-right terrorism in the USA, and how white nationalists have produced more domestic terrorists than any other group. This is far from the first time I've seen this discussed.
Thanks, I was wondering if maybe I just did not manage to see all of the stories somehow, after I wrote that. However, I still feel like this social phenomenon needs constant attention. People are making money by pushing this entire white-male victomhood agenda, and it has lethal consequences.
Edit: btw, I’m a middle aged white male.
I have to say that this reminds me of the
shootingsmurders at a screening of the movie Trainwreck, and also the lack of calling out far-right, misogynist violence in the media.Edit: Btw, why does even Wikipedia call these events “shootings” and not “murders?” I used to shoot in my backyard, and the two events are not related. The normalization of gun murder in the USA has even permeated the English language on Wikipedia.
Edit2: I just realized that I had tagged this topic with “shooting” and not “murder.” I fell for the normalization myself.
And I've changed that tag to "mass shooting" because that's what we're using to describe these events here on Tildes. Remember that it's not only about the number of people killed, but also about the fact that the perpetrator went to a place with a lot of people and then shot a lot of people. In this case, Mr Beierl allegedly shot 7 people even though only 2 died. That makes it a mass shooting, even if it's not a mass murder.