A Well Regulated Militia . . .
The human pieces of shit at Breitbart doing what they do
The human pieces of shit at Breitbart doing what they do
-
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
I know that area, Smith Mountain Lake. I know that TV station. As far as I know they have never been remotely controversial. So, a disgruntled former employee. In Virginia anybody can legally purchase a firearm provided they are not a convicted felon and they are more than enough ways to get around that. The shooter probably owned the guns legally. It's insane. I expect the NRA to issue a bulletin suggesting that all TV crews on a job to interview the local scout troop or FFA go armed to the teeth.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
A bit premature there.ursus arctos wrote: "disgruntled employee" = white, male shooter
Not saying there's no racial element in this story. It appears that after this champion arsehole murdered this young woman and man he bravely called her out on twitter for making racist comments.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
FWIW, at the time he was labelled as a "disgruntled employee", the eyewitness reports described the shooter as a "white man wearing black".Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
When I worked at a TV station (for about a year) a crazy guy tried to break into the newsroom, apparently wanting to rant on camera. He never made it through the lobby, and when the cops came in and arrested him they searched the trunk of his car and found numerous firearms, including a machine gun.
Very scary.
Unfortunately, just like all the other shootings in the U.S., this one is unlikely to change any minds or laws.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
How this latest incident was reported by Blighty's very own fourth estate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-34070373
Hurrah for the freedom of the press, say I!Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
But it might change the minds of the people in the UK who are tempted to vote for a party who are on record as saying they would legalize the ownership of handguns.Renart wrote: When I worked at a TV station (for about a year) a crazy guy tried to break into the newsroom, apparently wanting to rant on camera. He never made it through the lobby, and when the cops came in and arrested him they searched the trunk of his car and found numerous firearms, including a machine gun.
Very scary.
Unfortunately, just like all the other shootings in the U.S., this one is unlikely to change any minds or laws.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Yes, not pleasant.Guy Potger wrote: How this latest incident was reported by Blighty's very own fourth estate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-34070373
Hurrah for the freedom of the press, say I!
Still, our opinions on freedom of the press are properly tested when they print factual things we don't necessarily want them to print.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
They can provide the facts without competing with each other to capture the exact moment of the poor woman's death. It's a matter of respect for the victim's dignity, and has fuck all to do with freedom.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Would you like to censor that kind of reporting Sean?.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Censor is a scary word. Why not speak in terms of decorum?Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Of course not, but I'd like the papers to self-censor a bit more, rather than try to capture the most gratuitously horrific shot possible just to try and outdo their rivals. How would you feel if that was a member of your family in that picture, Luke?Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Oh. That's who you are.george clarts wrote:
george clarts
(formerly beak)
(Quickly reviews thread history to find out if you're on my "ignore poster" list…)Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Vital context from the Chicago Tribune's crime reporter.
The difference between the shooting this morning in Virginia and every other act of gun violence is that the internet had to see the fear on a woman's face as she realized she was about to die.
There is a regularity to violence in urban areas. Today everyone saw what violence looks like, except the victims are usually a little younger and have darker skin. It's not often on tape so the reaction isn't so visceral. This is what violence feels like to people who see it happen, we can now all say, because we've all seen it happen.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
The question is does it sensitise us to gun violence? Or when we see it again — because we will see it again — will it get a sigh, then a shrug as we pass by.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
I have to say I feel profoundly depressed whenever I see this thread as I know there has been another senseless gun death or massacre in the United States.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Not just the newspapers that should have "self-censored".Sean of the Shed wrote: Of course not, but I'd like the papers to self-censor a bit more, rather than try to capture the most gratuitously horrific shot possible just to try and outdo their rivals. How would you feel if that was a member of your family in that picture, Luke?
Some of the users of social media might like to have done the same, as could have the providers of those social media platforms.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34074189Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
@SotS
Those tabloids probably should not have printed that on the front page. Directly involved in the story or not, I would personally prefer it if they had not done it. I don't like it.
My response was directly to Guy's sardonic "Hurrah for the freedom of the press" comment. Freedom of press is tested especially during times when we disagree with what they do or say (especially if it's factual). I'm afraid it has everything to with freedom - of the press. And as depressing as that is, the alternative is horrifying.
@george clarts
My use of the word censor was responding to Guy's "Freedom of the Press" comment, so not outside good taste and propriety according to those terms of debate.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
I don't think the question is now “should the media have the freedom to show these images?” They have. They’ve printed it in glorious technicolour. I looked in despair at the coverage of the Shoreham air show crash as outlets such as the Guardian had in close up detail the video of the crash and the enveloping flames consuming those poor people in their cars. I didn't watch it but read that this is what it showed.
I cannot imagine how much this crass, insensitive and creepily voyeuristic coverage magnifies the grief of the families and friends of those who have died in such a violent fashion. I would be devastated if I thought that the very last horrible moments of a loved one would be splashed everywhere for weirdos to get their kicks online forever.
Sadly this is the world we now live in, in which media news coverage and fiction are becoming ever more blurred aided by instant technology. What good does it do to show these images? Can we really not accept reporting of violent death without viewing the porn?
No, the debate is not “freedom for the press to show gratuitous images of final moments of death and suffering”, the debate is really “what responsibilities should the media have in showing (or otherwise) the last moments of someone’s life ending in such violent fashion.” And in the case of many outlets, there is no responsibility. It sells papers/more clicks/more viewers. Death as entertainment.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
The NY Daily News tabloid went with a triptych of stills of the gun aiming, the shot with the explosion in front of the barrel, and then the woman's look of shock.
Some people asked why people are outraged with that and the video being replayed, but are okay with videos of police killing black men being replayed endlessly.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Really?Incandenza wrote: The NY Daily News tabloid went with a triptych of stills of the gun aiming, the shot with the explosion in front of the barrel, and then the woman's look of shock.
Some people asked why people are outraged with that and the video being replayed, but are okay with videos of police killing black men being replayed endlessly.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
To convey the news vividly, in as much detail as is available, is not to revel in it or glorify it. That's the job of news organizations. And if that level of graphic conveyance acts as a catalyst for change, so much the better.
Until people understand, in living colour, what a gun death looks like, nothing will change. If a thousand images of two sneakers sticking out from under a yellow tarp won't do it, maybe one white woman's look of terror will.
Either way, it's not the 'media's' job to sanitize life for your protection.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
Yep. I'm not making the argument myself. I saw one tweet last night showing the NY Times' front page with three photos from the video in South Carolina of the cop killing the man running away from him, and pointed out that there was no outrage over that.Guy Potger wrote:Really?Originally posted by Incandenza
The wider point they're making is that when it's a white woman in question, showing violence inflicted on her is taboo, whereas no one even raises the issue when it's a black man subject to the violence.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
WOM, if gun control wasn't a viable political issue for elected officials when 21 elementary school students were killed, nothing is ever going to change. The public supports some forms of gun control, but the political will isn't there.WOM wrote: To convey the news vividly, in as much detail as is available, is not to revel in it or glorify it. That's the job of news organizations. And if that level of graphic conveyance acts as a catalyst for change, so much the better.
Until people understand, in living colour, what a gun death looks like, nothing will change. If a thousand images of two sneakers sticking out from under a yellow tarp won't do it, maybe one white woman's look of terror will.Comment
-
A Well Regulated Militia . . .
I was trying to make the point that I thought there'd been plenty of outrage about young black men being killed.Incandenza wrote:Yep. I'm not making the argument myself. I saw one tweet last night showing the NY Times' front page with three photos from the video in South Carolina of the cop killing the man running away from him, and pointed out that there was no outrage over that.Originally posted by Guy Potger
The wider point they're making is that when it's a white woman in question, showing violence inflicted on her is taboo, whereas no one even raises the issue when it's a black man subject to the violence.
Even where it's been (slightly) less graphically conveyed.
But yes. I take your point.Comment
Comment