Media have NO RIGHT to black out the name of the scum who murder

a reply to: vonclod

Advertised? Do you know what the word advertised means?

This has nothing to do with exposing who he is etc. It has everything to do with the msm deciding what we should and shouldn't know about major events. In this case it is his name. In other cases it will be important points. What qualifies these people to decide what we should and shouldn't know.

You say people can just search for it. Yes some can but not all. But u are missing the point totally.

It's not the naming of these people in the news that creates wannabe murderers. It is lack of education and the state of society as a whole.

a reply to: Jonjonj

No you are wrong.

What is the purpose of a journalist? To provide the mass with information on an issue or event. When the journalists boss edits what they have written and removes whatever they want then we are in trouble. This goes on everywhere and is possibly the MAIN reason the world is full of zombies.
Information should reach the public unedited and unfiltered by those who think they are some kind of God's who know what is better for us.

Do YOU not want to make these decisions for yourself?

Example..

In the future I am murdered by a policeman for asking a question when I am pulled over for speeding. The media decide the full story is too much for our feeble minds. So they remove the police officers name.. remove he was a police officer...remove my name. ...remove what actually happened. The put in what suits the narrative.

Do you not see where we are and where we are going.

Maybe they did not know 100% and the law department suggested not putting a name out incase they name tge wrong man.

Lack of education and / or a broken education system is a factor: my daughter goes to high school in AZ, and their education system is laughable. They are literally paying a 12th grade government teacher to talk about how horrible / lazy / self-obsessed the next generation is, or about his wife and his admiration for Colorado's pot policies. Anything EXCEPT government. Meanwhile her econ teacher is the High School Football coach, and all he talks about is Football, the school's Football team, and how my daughter's generation are lazy degenerates. So there is at least one HS out there where teachers are being paid to NOT teach US Government or Economics; --an issue I struggle against daily, BTW.

That said -- this shooter's own words describe him as a fame seeking missile, and the words and actions of the news crew shooter were also very "fame-seeking," so it is clearly an issue.

I am inclined to agree that it's our whole stinkin' society that's to blame, though I suspect you and I might have vastly different opinions as to which part is broken here. Regardless -- we can't fix the whole society at once any more than we can fix the universe, or line up the planets and stars at will.

What we CAN do is: start identifying things that are wobbly, and work on those. Starting with idiot wall-to-wall coverage of spree-killers, third-world educational outcomes, mental health, and the overall notion that -- whatever rewards our society offers for playing -- they aren't appealing to certain groups or individuals, and work to modify those, as best we can.

I get what everyone is saying about not giving the killers notoriety of any sort but...

It's a slippery slope and when government or media start cherry-picking what's in the public's best interest to know or not know, it creates a dangerous precedence. Where does it stop?

I'm honestly shocked that so many on an alternative discussion / conspiracy site are so willing to just accept this. Orwell is rolling in his grave.

You won't give up your guns but you willingly surrender the facts.

a reply to: liteonit6969

The information has not been censored, there is simply no desire to give the killer the recognition he so obviously wanted.
The information is there, you know who he is, you have seen his blogs and photographs.

All this information is out there, it is up to you to find it. Does the media have to provide every gory detail for a salivating public? They have so far, and the result is that many people believe the copy cat effect is real.

a reply to: kosmicjack

You have taken the words out of my mouth. I am shocked that there is such a strong argument for taking away the truth.
The irony being that these people are arguing for something that will ultimately take away their freedom of speech. Whatever they say will be edited filtered and removed if it doesn't fit the narrative.

Information is made available to the press for the sole reason to inform the public. Not for their own 'superior' amusement.

In particular, government agencies make information available to the press because it is public information and it saves money to allow the press to disseminate it rather than respond to public inquiries repeatedly.

That's what open records law is all about.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Removing his name will not deter copycats.

What are these copycats going to do....all change their names to the killers name?

NO

They will copy the horrible acts of violence that brings fear and pain.

Think about it...for yourself.

a reply to: liteonit6969

The purpose of the press is to inform, and the public has been informed. All the information that is pertinent is known. Or is there something that hasn't been made public that you feel should be?

The purpose of the press is not to sensationalise or glorify, and that is what has happened over the last few decades, I mean serial killers have become in some ways inspirational characters for the love of god!

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: liteonit6969

The purpose of the press is to inform, and the public has been informed. All the information that is pertinent is known. Or is there something that hasn't been made public that you feel should be?

The purpose of the press is not to sensationalise or glorify, and that is what has happened over the last few decades, I mean serial killers have become in some ways inspirational characters for the love of god!

That's not because a serial killer's name is reported -- Hillside Strangler, Jack the Ripper, Green River Killer, Son of Sam.

Killers are glorified with 24-7 media coverage and even PRESIDENTIAL attention.

The name is meaningless. If people didn't have his name, they would just think of one to give him.

(Although I do realize the name has been reported. I think we are speaking hypothetically at this point.)

I think that the media is somehow involved in these shooting events. In the minds of the shooters, they seem to be doing this to be infamous.

The reporting of each incident is the same. They interview the survivors, the families of those killed and wounded, and sometimes the family of the shooter.

I think that we as a society need to study these shootings and see if there is a way that would take the glamour out of it. If that meant that the media should report these shootings in a different manor or not name or show the picture of the shooter, that would be fine with me.

I don't think that the media needs to feed the mental instability of individuals who may end up committing such a crime. Right now, I think that the media is somehow involved in promoting these incidents

a reply to: Jonjonj

You are scrapping the bottom of the barrell with your argument. You are avoiding the most important point.

Do you think any one person has the right to decide what the mass know and shouldn't know about a case?

originally posted by: Wildbob77
I think that the media is somehow involved in these shooting events. In the minds of the shooters, they seem to be doing this to be infamous.

Ah, I remember the good old days where serial killers didn't murder because they wanted to get caught and for everyone to know about it.

Back then, they actually hoped they wouldn't get caught because that's what fed their fragile egos.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you think this situation is being used to Carey out a social experiment? By removing a silly detail such as his name from the msm do you think this is an experiment on how quickly this piece of information will be spread through social media?

It makes no sense why people who come to forums such as these will argue the same deadend point that this withholding of details from the public is in all our best interests.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you think this situation is being used to Carey out a social experiment? By removing a silly detail such as his name from the msm do you think this is an experiment on how quickly this piece of information will be spread through social media?

It makes no sense why people who come to forums such as these will argue the same deadend point that this withholding of details from the public is in all our best interests.

I absolutely believe that data collection is the priority no matter what event we are talking about. Data is being collected because it can be used to predict responses to other things.

That said, I am certain there are other reasons, as well...there always are.

originally posted by: liteonit6969
a reply to: Jonjonj

You are scrapping the bottom of the barrell with your argument. You are avoiding the most important point.

Do you think any one person has the right to decide what the mass know and shouldn't know about a case?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel? How so?

Let us get down to your "most important point" then shall we?

For you, the non repetition of the killer's name is what we are talking about here right?

The name is known, why should it be repeated?

Who is this ONE person who has decided to hide from us all the information?

Why is it, if that is the case, that there is a new thread about the weapons cache on the recent threads page on ATS?

What exactly is it you are annoyed about?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Perhaps, when the future serial killer/spree killer states his intentions and they go something like "I want to be bigger than...you know...what's his name...that guy that killed like 20 people...damn what was his name again"?

Of course I am joking, I just do not see this as the beginning of any slippery slope at all. The media will always inform, it is their raison d'etre.

And there will always be ways to find out more information, if one wanted to.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I'm not really talking about not mentioning it at all - it IS news, and that is what news people do. What I'm talking about is the incessant discussion on the cable channels all day long, every day for weeks, all the experts coming on and pontificating on why he did it, and all the articles online that discuss what his childhood was like, what his parents were like, what his likes and dislikes were, what his favorite food was, what he had for dinner the night before he shot everyone, blah, blah, blah. Too much being told and discussed ad nauseam about a loser who did what he did so he could be discussed in just such a manner.

Back in the day, a person who shot some people would be mentioned on the local news and a couple of newspaper articles would be written, and that would be it. I say, we go back to that way of telling the news.

a reply to: Jonjonj

OK il make my point clear.....


The media and government have no right to DECIDE how much information will fed to the mass. The news should be full and allow people to make their own mind up. Information should not be manipulated to shape the way we think or behave.