If it's the media's fault then we should be thankful that the mass murders are coming so fast and furious. This gives the media too little time to report and sensationalize each one. Just as a media team takes off for Philadelphia to sensationalize a mass murder there another happens in Chattanooga, so they divert there, and then another happens in Saginaw, Michigan, so they divert there, and in the end they never get anywhere, just fly around in the sky. Let us thank God for enough mass murders that before the media can properly sensationalize one mass murder another happens.
Divert?? Too little time?? This isn't the early 20th century, they have things called video cameras now, they have multiple crews that can spend all the time they want at any location. Muir's back at his lavish news desk, showing the same Uvalde videos over and over again. Last evening, he talked live with his reporter Matt Gutman, who is still there with his entourage of camara men. Another ABC reporter, Amy Robach, is apparently full time on this indefinitely. She interviewed one of the teachers who was injured but survived, he's furious with police and wants to sue. I watched it, nothing bad at all said about the shooter. Muir, last night, told us to be sure to catch "Good Morning America", that there would be plenty more of her interview, and there was, they started the show out with 15 minutes of the drama.
After they moved on from that to more gun control and climate terror and JANUARY 6th!!!!!!!, I switched to Fox News. Got there just in time to see a recent taped interview with Kyle Rittenhouse. He has to have armed security, can't get a job etc. Then they showed a montage of a half dozen ABC and other mainstream reporters calling him a white supremacist terrorist, and other names, back before and during his trial. He's going to sue and he'll win, similar to how Nick Sandman did. But it will be a tiny percentage of what the mainstream media can afford to lose, and it won't change how they operate one bit.
They couldn't imagine the technology, but of course they could imagine a media like today's, even much worse, because they already had a media like ours. In fact, more newspapers and pamphlets were extremely vicious back then, with more Alex Jones and Glenn Beck equivalents.
Sorry, they did not have a media like ours. They did not have reporters making the equivalent of the $6 million per year (in those days dollars), because advertising and political war chests were nothing compared to today. They could very well have been "vicious", but they couldn't sensationalize much, because they didn't have today's technology, or funding. Today we have no way of knowing how much of Muir's $6 million is paid through advertising, and how much comes from the Democrat party. It's the same at Fox News of course, I'm not favoring Fox in what I'm saying here.
Who can tell what goes on the minds of mass shooters? You, obviously. You just told us they're all copycats.
That wasn't an analyzation of their minds, it's an observation of how they are, mentally disturbed, sick, stupid. They're not capable of much originality. But they don't have to be very smart to get around gun laws.
Except for people sounding the alarm about guns, those are all conservative excuses for why guns are not the problem. It's everybody else's fault. For some, like you, it's the media's fault, but you blame everything on the media. For others it's that there wasn't enough security. For others there were failures of procedure. Some think it's a mental health issues. Others think we need more red flag laws. Some blame American culture. But guns? Few conservatives blame the guns. They like guns, so they can't blame them.
It's not logical to blame hardware, simple hardware by today's standards, for actions of people. You don't think those other things you mentioned deserve exploration? Couldn't some additional money, from new taxes on the news media, be put to good use by exploring those things further? Wouldn't you on the left welcome my idea of growing the government in this instance? I'm not talking about taxing basic reports on the first day of these events, I'm talking about extended stays by media entourages, by week after week emotional interviews by reporters like Amy Robach.
The Supreme Court has said plenty about the First Amendment right to free speech. For example, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater (incitement). You can't defame people, as Deep vs. Heard recently demonstrated. You can't use fighting words or make threats (incitement again).
And you don't think the media is doing the equivalent of that today, by what they did to Nick Sandman, to Kyle Rittenhouse, and the Amy Robach frenzy they're stirring up for profit and ratings?
The government's determination to continue the Vietnam war was doomed once the media began focusing attention on what was really happening in Vietnam. Now the media is focusing attention on what is really happening with guns, and you, liking guns, are understandably unhappy about it.
Yes, because there's no question that 18 to 21 year olds are now buying up guns in record numbers, some of them future shooters, before new laws take effect. Common sense tells me that, though the news would never report it. Unhappy because Chicago has the most stringent gun laws in the country, and the most shooting records continue. Unhappy because gun controllers would respond to that by saying the guns are brought to Chicago from other areas of the U.S., and so need to be banned everywhere in the U.S. Unhappy by realizing that new guns would then pour into the U.S. over our wide open southern border.
If you're against ANY exploration of what can be done to reign in today's corrupt news media, that they're completely untouchable and can do anything they want to exploit human nature's more unfortunate characteristics, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
™ Version 4.2