Six Shot at School Bus Stop - Does News Coverage Encourage Killers ?

B

B1ackwater

Guest
CNN
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- The Clark County School District increased
security Wednesday after six young people were shot at a school bus
stop following a fight over a girl, authorities said.

Police work the scene of shootings at a school bus stop in North Las
Vegas, Nevada, on Tuesday.

The six were shot Tuesday shortly after a group of Mohave High School
students got off a school bus in a working-class neighborhood in
northeastern Las Vegas. Police were searching for at least two
suspects late Tuesday.

An 18-year-old man was in critical condition and a 17-year-old boy was
upgraded from critical to serious condition, both with gunshot wounds
to the torso, said Cheryl Persinger, a University Medical Center
spokeswoman.

Four people, including at least two boys and a girl who are under 18,
were treated for gunshot wounds to their arms and legs and were
released, she said. All four are students at Mojave High School who
had just stepped off the bus, which was coming from the school, police
said.

Authorities would not release any other information about the two
victims who were still hospitalized, including whether they were
students or had been on the bus.

Police said they believed the shooting was linked to a fight at Mohave
earlier in the day. The brawl had been contained by school police, who
arrested three male students, officials said.

Sheriff Doug Gillespie did not describe how he believed the incidents
were connected. The fight at the school did not appear to be gang or
race-related, he said.

"At this point, the indicators that we have found ... it's a dispute
over a girlfriend," Gillespie said.

Police believe the suspects were waiting at the bus stop for the bus
to arrive. Gillespie said the shooting did not appear to be random.

- - - - -

OK ... what the hell is going on here ??? Seems like
every time there's a well-publicized massacre, a bunch
of other nutters get inspired to raise some hell
themselves. It's sort of like the bar has been raised
and to do anything that "counts" you've gotta out-do
the killers on the 6-O'Clock news.

I blame the news. By hyping the hell out of these things,
dwelling on them for days or weeks, launching 'gun hunts'
and 'who-knew-what-and-when-did-they-know-it' witch hunts
they wind up glorifying the perpetrators and setting a new
standard for mayhem. Increases revenues for the news orgs
and their advertisers of course ...

There are laws against "inciting a riot" ... I wonder if
those can be applied to the 'media' ? Can the media be
required to present a "just the facts" style show when
it comes to mass killings and skip the "inspirational"
hype ?

Does "freedom of the press" mean TOTAL freedom, even if
it gets people killed, or can the style in which news is
presented be moderated by law in certain cases ? I'm not
talking fact-suppression, that's a vital function, but
self-serving "showmanship" issues instead where the
public safety is a legitimate concern.

Hey, if it's OK to screw down the 2nd amendment with
background checks, carry restrictions, licences and
such, screw down 1st-amendment free speech/expression
with laws restricting porno and prayer, then it ought
to be OK to screw down the 'freedom of the press' part
of the 1st as well.

Keep the facts, lose the hype. There's "reporting" and
then there's a camera shoved in the face of the most
hysterical blood-soaked victims they can find and
calling it "news". It's not, it's voyeurism. It's what
inspires the next nutter and the next and the next -
their route to "eternal fame".

Hmmm ?
 
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

>Keep the facts, lose the hype. There's "reporting" and
> then there's a camera shoved in the face of the most
> hysterical blood-soaked victims they can find and
> calling it "news". It's not, it's voyeurism. It's what
> inspires the next nutter and the next and the next -
> their route to "eternal fame".



Exactly. The most accomplished terrorists in the USA are the news
media.




--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
 
slate_leeper wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>
>> Keep the facts, lose the hype. There's "reporting" and
>> then there's a camera shoved in the face of the most
>> hysterical blood-soaked victims they can find and
>> calling it "news". It's not, it's voyeurism. It's what
>> inspires the next nutter and the next and the next -
>> their route to "eternal fame".

>
>
> Exactly. The most accomplished terrorists in the USA are the news
> media.


Turn off the TV and radio! Don't read the newspaper! Get your
information by "channeling" Wayne LaPierre.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Protect your civil rights!
> Let the politicians know how you feel.
> Join or donate to the NRA today!
> http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887


--

Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
 
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:58:38 GMT, slate_leeper <bycy-r0bj@spamex.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>
>>Keep the facts, lose the hype. There's "reporting" and
>> then there's a camera shoved in the face of the most
>> hysterical blood-soaked victims they can find and
>> calling it "news". It's not, it's voyeurism. It's what
>> inspires the next nutter and the next and the next -
>> their route to "eternal fame".

>
>
>Exactly. The most accomplished terrorists in the USA
>are the news media.


That's one way to look at it - not entirely wrong either.

"Terror-merchants" at the very least, perhaps "terror
enablers" at times.

But how to FIX that in the context of todays society ?
I'm not sure it can be done - even by force of law.
"Reporting" and "exploiting" ... the line between the
two is broad and fuzzy. It's one of those "you know
it when you SEE it" things, but laws only work well
with exact benchmarks.

I think the only solution is to persuade news people
to quit hyping evil deeds. It's going to be a hard sale
though. Audiences WILL gravitate towards blood and hype,
seems to be a human nature thing, and that means the
advertisers will get the greatest return on their money.
Newspeople would have to WILLINGLY underperform (in the
eyes of their advertisers). Unless they ALL did it at
the same time it couldn't work.
 
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:57:14 GMT, B1ackwater wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:58:38 GMT, slate_leeper <bycy-r0bj@spamex.com>
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>>> Keep the facts, lose the hype. There's "reporting" and
>>> then there's a camera shoved in the face of the most
>>> hysterical blood-soaked victims they can find and
>>> calling it "news". It's not, it's voyeurism. It's what
>>> inspires the next nutter and the next and the next -
>>> their route to "eternal fame".

>>
>>Exactly. The most accomplished terrorists in the USA
>>are the news media.

>
> That's one way to look at it - not entirely wrong either.
>
> "Terror-merchants" at the very least, perhaps "terror
> enablers" at times.
>
> But how to FIX that in the context of todays society ?
> I'm not sure it can be done - even by force of law.
> "Reporting" and "exploiting" ... the line between the
> two is broad and fuzzy. It's one of those "you know
> it when you SEE it" things, but laws only work well
> with exact benchmarks.
>
> I think the only solution is to persuade news people
> to quit hyping evil deeds.


I recall in the late 1960s, while on a business trip to Detroit,
the major newspapers were all on strike leaving the Detroit Free Press as
the only daily paper. They instituted an editorial policy of referring to
those guilty of street crimes using decidedly derogatory terms in an
attempt to make these incidents as unglamorous as possible.

Thus you'd see stories about how "Mrs. xxxxx, an 84 year old widow
was brutally assaulted and beaten yesterday by three dirty, cowardly, street
punks with nothing better to do than gang up on old women who're on the way
back from cashing their Social Security check. For their despicable efforts
these cowardly dimwits got away with $87.00."

As I recall, there was some protest from some group or other. And
frankly I can see how such a policy could easily be abused, but still..

I left Detroit after a few weeks, so I'm unable to comment on any
results of this policy or how the protest was resolved, but f'sure the
Detroit FreeP could not be accused of glamorising street crime.

--
jimbo@sonic.net
 
On Dec 12, 6:07 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

> OK ... what the hell is going on here ??? Seems like
> every time there's a well-publicized massacre, a bunch
> of other nutters get inspired to raise some hell
> themselves. It's sort of like the bar has been raised
> and to do anything that "counts" you've gotta out-do
> the killers on the 6-O'Clock news.
>
> I blame the news. By hyping the hell out of these things,
> dwelling on them for days or weeks, launching 'gun hunts'
> and 'who-knew-what-and-when-did-they-know-it' witch hunts
> they wind up glorifying the perpetrators and setting a new
> standard for mayhem. Increases revenues for the news orgs
> and their advertisers of course ...


probably one of the unavoidable, unfortunate consequenses of a free
society.

> There are laws against "inciting a riot" ... I wonder if
> those can be applied to the 'media' ? Can the media be
> required to present a "just the facts" style show when
> it comes to mass killings and skip the "inspirational"
> hype ?


That would be a violation of the first amendment, for one thing.
For another, the teacher who allowed one of her students to name a
teddy bear mohammed could, theoretically, be cited for inciting a
riot. Do we really want mobs of people with feigned outrage getting
people arrested at their whim?
 
guyjin <guyvf@usa.net> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 6:07 am, b...@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:
>
>> OK ... what the hell is going on here ??? Seems like
>> every time there's a well-publicized massacre, a bunch
>> of other nutters get inspired to raise some hell
>> themselves. It's sort of like the bar has been raised
>> and to do anything that "counts" you've gotta out-do
>> the killers on the 6-O'Clock news.
>>
>> I blame the news. By hyping the hell out of these things,
>> dwelling on them for days or weeks, launching 'gun hunts'
>> and 'who-knew-what-and-when-did-they-know-it' witch hunts
>> they wind up glorifying the perpetrators and setting a new
>> standard for mayhem. Increases revenues for the news orgs
>> and their advertisers of course ...

>
>probably one of the unavoidable, unfortunate consequenses of a free
>society.


There are always unforseen consequences. "Democracy" itself,
for example, does not ensure correct policies, only popular
policies.

>> There are laws against "inciting a riot" ... I wonder if
>> those can be applied to the 'media' ? Can the media be
>> required to present a "just the facts" style show when
>> it comes to mass killings and skip the "inspirational"
>> hype ?

>
>That would be a violation of the first amendment, for one thing.


I'd say that insisting I have a gun-carry permit represents
a violation of my 2nd-amendment rights. Yet, the laws ARE
on the books. 'Rights' are never unlimited. "Greater good"
issues CAN result in restrictions.

>For another, the teacher who allowed one of her students to name a
>teddy bear mohammed could, theoretically, be cited for inciting a
>riot.


She did - although with extenuating circumstances ... ignorance
and the blindness of ethnocentrism. She'd gone to a VERY foreign
country, during a period of great religious friction, and yet
continued to think just like some middle-class Britisher living
in a suburb of Luton. I'm amazed the organization that sent her
there didn't do a better job of screening applicants.

How COULD anyone be such a ditz ? You'd think she would have
KNOWN that extremists would latch on to ANY excuse ...

I almost wish they HAD chopped her head off - not as if there
was much in there anyway. Would have been educational for her
countrymen. :)

>Do we really want mobs of people with feigned outrage getting
>people arrested at their whim?


Well, we already give such mobs the power to put people
out of their jobs, blacklist them. Ask Don Imus ...
 
"guyjin" <guyvf@usa.net> wrote in message
news:dba56960-c5eb-40c9-a30a-fd66e15d8127@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

> That would be a violation of the first amendment, for one thing.
> For another, the teacher who allowed one of her students to name a
> teddy bear mohammed could, theoretically, be cited for inciting a
> riot. Do we really want mobs of people with feigned outrage getting
> people arrested at their whim?


What keeps getting lost in the teddy bear thing is the fact that
the KID named it through a VOTE.....
mohammed being the most popular name and all......
 
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:07:47 GMT, bw@barrk.net (B1ackwater) wrote:

> There are laws against "inciting a riot" ... I wonder if
> those can be applied to the 'media' ? Can the media be
> required to present a "just the facts" style show when
> it comes to mass killings and skip the "inspirational"
> hype ?


It wouldn't make a difference. Copycats would still be inspired by
the attention.
 
"Topp@Work" <topprolmc@comcast.net> wrote in
news:lJednRmtzdh0av_anZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@giganews.com:

>
> "guyjin" <guyvf@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:dba56960-c5eb-40c9-a30a-fd66e15d8127

@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
>> That would be a violation of the first amendment, for one thing.
>> For another, the teacher who allowed one of her students to name a
>> teddy bear mohammed could, theoretically, be cited for inciting a
>> riot. Do we really want mobs of people with feigned outrage getting
>> people arrested at their whim?

>
> What keeps getting lost in the teddy bear thing is the fact that
> the KID named it through a VOTE.....
> mohammed being the most popular name and all......


Correct. It was not one kid naming it. It was an entire class.


--
RD (The Sandman)

War is absolute hell.....but to give in
to terrorism is much, much worse
 
Back
Top