[Woods walker]

I was reading in this mornings paper where the mass murderer in Sandy Hook had studied the Nickel Mines mass killing in Lancaster Co., as well as several others. They found evidence of it at his home. Now here is the conundrom as I see it, while the mass media is busy helping the administration to push to water down the 2nd amendment because of these shootings, they are culpable at least a little for these mass killings. It is known that many of these wingnuts who go on shooting rampages admired others who were mass murders, they read everything they could about the murders and murderers. In all these tradgeies the media puts on a blits, that lasts for weeks, a never ending litany of stories about the killers and the killed, it never seems to end. Now I understand they have a right to publish these stories under the 1st amendment, however, do they really have to push these stories so hard for so long, helping to fan the fires of other nut cases waiting in the whngs some where ready to be a copy cat? Since the media is so quick to jump on the gun control band wagon, don't you think there should be a push for media control? Limit how long they may push a story and to try not to look like they are enjoying it?

Yeah, this was tongue in cheek, but!

 

[buckhunter]

I wish, but common sense isn't so common anymore. As evidenced by our administration and the media.

 

[GRock]

I believe the government was behind the shootings more than we willever know about.

 

[repsagA29]

I believe the government was behind the shootings more than we willever know about.

Yeah, and I can fold a five dollar bill in such a way to prove we blew up the twin towers too!

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Your complaint is not really the media but information. You are upset that certain people had access to information about mass killings. You seriously would ban the spread and access to information? Just what we need law against information. Seems the first amendment was adopted to prevent such censorship. To provide for the exchange of information and ideas. Not to quash it. So when bad things happen, we should sweep it all under the carpet so nobody knows and the public has no chance to learn from it, protect against similar things in the future, etc.

Maybe it would be better to just execute crazy people? Perhaps since some conditions such as mental illness can be hereditary, we should sterilize every body who is involuntarily committed to a mental institution? Eliminate those genes from the pool? Either suggestion, the censorship or the eugenics both sound like early 1940's Germany.

 

[Woods walker]

I do not believe the government had a thing to do with that mass killing or any other. The head Marxist in charge and his leftist minions are simply taking advantage of a bad situation to push their agenda.

 

[Alpine Shooter]

I do not believe the government had a thing to do with that mass killing or any other. The head Marxist in charge and his leftist minions are simply taking advantage of a bad situation to push their agenda.

+1

 

[Woods walker]

I would have thought you would have had a better comprehension level. It is clear that my problem is with the media in the over zealous manner they push certain information, not the information. When stories like these break the media thinks it ia all about them and continues to push the story day after day getting face time when the info is alread out and it is no longer news. I simply pointd out that their methods feed the nut cases and I did have a disalaimer saying it was tongue in cheek.

 

[buckhunter]

plus the media in this day and age whether it be MSN, Fox, whoever is biased they twist info and numbers to suit there purposes. politics has their spin doctors the media is full of them. It's sickening.

 

[lonnielou688]

John is right on this, they have a duty and a right to publish the news, but they shouldn't be able to sensationalize it like they do. They use it to set precedent and use it to sell advertising, and to drive agendas. They will harp and hound on this till something new comes down the pike to take its place, whether its an earthquake, hurricane, war with another country, or a sex scandal, whatever will sell again. There should be a limit somewhere there , I just don't know how or who would police such a limit .There is always some new nut who wants to be the next big news story, making it all about them, and a reporter who's willing to hand them the spotlight and microphone.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I am tired of hearing the name Kardashian, and Bieber.

I can't make the media stop inundating me with that crap, I can and do switch stations. They push whatever the ratings tell them increases their market. So if constant replay of the same sensational idiocy sells, then shame on the American public. We all have the ability to tell the media how we think by simply tuning the device, switching the station or turning the device off completely.

But you want to pass a law to infringe on the first amendment, while you complain that folks may want to infringe on the second amendment. I prefer to believe that ALL of the Bill of Rights should not be infringed upon. Not just twist one or disregard the other to meet the agenda de jure.

 

[InVenangoNow]

But you want to pass a law to infringe on the first amendment, while you complain that folks may want to infringe on the second amendment. I prefer to believe that ALL of the Bill of Rights should not be infringed upon. Not just twist one or disregard the other to meet the agenda de jure.

This!

 

[hdt]

It's the free market economy and free speech at work, we all have to take the bad with the good.

That said, I would absolutely love to See Fox, CBS, and MSNBC disappear in a puff of smoke.

 

[BCozhunter]

But you want to pass a law to infringe on the first amendment, while you complain that folks may want to infringe on the second amendment. I prefer to believe that ALL of the Bill of Rights should not be infringed upon. Not just twist one or disregard the other to meet the agenda de jure.

This!

This.....would be a great argument, IF it was relevant to what JohnS's post is about. But it's not. No where in the OP did I see any suggestion of censoring the news. Quit sensationalizing it, and making drama shows out of the news? Yes, that's what I got out of the post. But then, I don't have an agenda against LE.

 

[InVenangoNow]

I certainly don't either. Don't know where that came from but..... The thread title.... "I think we should have a move to ban the media"

 

[Woods walker]

Yes, the title was the hook. I thought everyone here was intelligent enough to know the post was tongue in cheek since I said it at the end of my post.

 

[BCozhunter]

To their credit John, you said tingue in cheek.

 

[Woods walker]

Perhaps that was the problem, I better fix it.

 

[InVenangoNow]

Yes, the title was the hook. I thought everyone here was intelligent enough to know the post was tongue in cheek since I said it at the end of my post.

You have to remember who your talking to John. And for the record I did see the tongue in cheek. My response was agreeing with what Zimm stated about we can't pick and choose. Funny thing is, nobody seems to be in a "humorous" mood when it comes to debating the second.

 

[gunmaster12]

every story published in, around and about gun control, gun laws and shootings all kept mentioning the sandy hook shooting that killed 20 first graders and six educators I already know this and I feel for the families. I am sick of reading about it in every article.