Why didn't the media report any of these mass shootings?

wildchild · Dec 5, 2015

The media is trying to make the ISIS terrorist attack in San Bernardino into a story about guns, instead of the true story, which is an Islamic terrorist attack.

Someone in the media decided it would be a good idea to say there is a mass shooting in the US every day. They are saying there have been 353 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

The question becomes, if there have been 353 mass shootings in the US, why hasn't the media reported on the overwhelming majority of them.

ETcallhome · Dec 5, 2015

hypocrisy? Right here in the United States in our media? I am shocked! Shocked I tell ya!

thanks so much for pointing that out
I never get tired of reading online posts about hypocrisy
It's my favorite thing to do

The reason I like hypocrisy so much is, I never have to defend my side. All I have to do is point out that the other side does the same thing. So, at least we are all just equally bad.

And isn't that the final goal of hypocrisy? To make us all equal...(equally bad.)

ETcallhome · Dec 5, 2015

Make us all equal
We will know we are equal
When you are like me

fhl · Dec 6, 2015

The New York Daily News is trying to take over from Salon as being the most hate filled bunch of nazis in the left wing propogandasphere.

Their most recent foray into faux journalism was a screed stating that there were 13 innocent victims in San Bernardino. 13 people who weren't just like the terrorists.
Of course there were 14 people killed in San Bernardino. Do you see where the nazi left is going with this? One of the people killed wrote facebook posts affirming his support of the NRA and negative towards islam. See now what the left is saying? Yes, that guy wasn't innocent, according to the New York Daily nazi gun grabbing muslim sht for brains.

Is Loretta Lynchbag going to do anything about this? Do I even need to ask? She went before a muslim group and professed her support for their so called right to not have their feelings hurt from dangerous talk. But when this scumbag from the New York Daily News goes down this road, there's not a chance in hades that a thing will be done about it.

btw, here's the pic this witch uses in her byline

linda stasi -- appropriate name, isn't it

now look what she looks like in reality

ETcallhome · Dec 6, 2015

fhl said:
The New York Daily News is trying to take over from Salon as being the most hate filled bunch of nazis in the left wing propogandasphere.

Their most recent foray into faux journalism was a screed stating that there were 13 innocent victims in San Bernardino. 13 people who weren't just like the terrorists.
Of course there were 14 people killed in San Bernardino. Do you see where the nazi left is going with this? One of the people killed wrote facebook posts affirming his support of the NRA and negative towards islam. See now what the left is saying? Yes, that guy wasn't innocent, according to the New York Daily nazi gun grabbing muslim sht for brains.

Is Loretta Lynchbag going to do anything about this? Do I even need to ask? She went before a muslim group and professed her support for their so called right to not have their feelings hurt from dangerous talk. But when this scumbag from the New York Daily News goes down this road, there's not a chance in hades that a thing will be done about it.

btw, here's the pic this witch uses in her byline

linda stasi -- appropriate name, isn't it

now look what she looks like in reality

not bad, but I don't think the media owes my anything. There is plenty in the constitution about the media, but nothing which states it must be fair and balanced.

heypa · Dec 6, 2015

It never has been even during the framing of the Constitution.

piezoe · Dec 6, 2015

wildchild said:
The media is trying to make the ISIS terrorist attack in San Bernardino into a story about guns, instead of the true story, which is an Islamic terrorist attack.

Someone in the media decided it would be a good idea to say there is a mass shooting in the US every day. They are saying there have been 353 mass shootings in the US this year alone.

The question becomes, if there have been 353 mass shootings in the US, why hasn't the media reported on the overwhelming majority of them.

It is likely all 353 mass shootings were reported at least locally. There are multiple criteria that determine how much news coverage is afforded to various news worthy events. The desire to inform the public is probably quite far down the list of criteria. The size of audience that can be attracted, which is related to the necessity of attracting advertisers, is probably at the top of the list. Partial exceptions might be broadcasters like pubic radio and public television.

ETcallhome · Dec 6, 2015

piezoe said:
It is likely all 353 mass shootings were reported at least locally. There are multiple criteria that determine how much news coverage is afforded to various news worthy events. The desire to inform the public is probably quite far down the list of criteria. The size of audience that can be attracted, which is related to the necessity of attracting advertisers, is probably at the top of the list. Partial exceptions might be broadcasters like pubic radio and public television.

it's called "Ratings." Without it you can't sell advertisements. What's next? A government controlled media outlet like NPR? (which by the way is where out in the boondocks where I lived I was able to hear all the great new and old jazz which wasn't selling too many ads at the time.)

piezoe · Dec 6, 2015

ETcallhome said:
it's called "Ratings." Without it you can't sell advertisements. What's next? A government controlled media outlet like NPR? (which by the way is where out in the boondocks where I lived I was able to hear all the great new and old jazz which wasn't selling too many ads at the time.)

PBS get about 85% of its funding from non-government sources. NPR gets 98% of its funding from non-government sources.

Among the industrialized nations the U.S. compares itself to, the U.S. spends by far the least amount of government resources on public broadcasting and the arts. If instead of buying 2500 F-35 fighter jets we bought 2499, one less, we could double our public funding on the arts via the National endowment for the Arts. That's how little the U.S. spends on the arts!

If instead of buying 2500 jet fighters we bought 2000 instead, we could double our public funding on the arts for several centuries! Which purchase would be the better long term investment: five hundred additional F-35 fighter jets on top of two-thousand others, or a doubling of funding for the Arts for several centuries?

ETcallhome · Dec 6, 2015

piezoe said:
PBS get about 85% of its funding from non-government sources. NPR gets 98% of its funding from non-government sources.

Among the industrialized nations the U.S. compares itself to, the U.S. spends by far the least amount of government resources on public broadcasting and the arts. If instead of buying 2500 F-35 fighter jets we bought 2499, one less, we could double our public funding on the arts via the National endowment for the Arts. That's how little the U.S. spends on the arts!

If instead of buying 2500 jet fighters we bought 2000 instead, we could double our public funding on the arts for several centuries! Which purchase would be the better long term investment: five hundred additional F-35 fighter jets on top of two-thousand others, or a doubling of funding for the Arts for several centuries?

even if it was only 2% government, I would have never been able to hear that great music at the time. It finally paid off, because when I got to the big city, I knew what music to buy.

I see no reason why a government can't be good. It was good for me.