Media Influence

[Red Dawg]

Everyone in our country is sickened by the tragedies by a few disturbed individuals. Why would someone go into a classroom and kill VERY young children? We will probably not know answers, but after the fact speculation gives some reasons, but of course they are pretty silly. Bottom line is no matter what legislation is brought forth and approved, there will always be some sick persons that will hurt themselves and others. So, and this is my observation, I'm not citing squat, is that we as Americans are all but TOLD how we should think by the media. It's a little more than subliminal, but, is in a psuedo hidden agenda. For instance, I was watching that wanker Piers Morgan this morning at O-Dark thirty, I'm thinking a re-run, and he had VCDL president Phil VanCleeve on. Mr V. defended his position pretty level headedly, and when asked about the "need" for an AR, he said, for the most part, well why do people drive ferraris? And the Bloody Brit ran with the AR being th ferrari of guns...Wouldn't seem to want to let it go. After that, he had on like, a dozen "victims of mass shootings"...That's pretty fair? Right? One defending their side, and a dozen against their side...As an aside, I have a problem with a person coming to my country, and whining, and fussing about our laws and the way we have our country. I said it before, and I'll say it again, to anyone that wants to be face to face with me. If you don't like MY country, go back to yours. Why are you here if your country is so danged "brilliant"...Of course a Brit doesn't like Americans to have guns, we used them to take this country from them in the 1700s.
Where is the balanced Media? When will they have a real debate with"experts" from both sides? Personally, I don't have a reason for owning a so called assault rifle, but I can not, and will not discourage someone from owning one. That is not my affair. I wonder sometimes if the true, and genuine Antis have any experience at all with guns to base their opinion(s) on. I wonder why the Media portrays a guy with a gun as a terrible person...One of the young ladies on the Brit dude's show gave her opinion IRT guns,a nd she stated, for the most part that she sees no reasons for any guns...But she doesn't mind someone getting her some deer....Huh? Smart gal, great argument. And she was drugged out of her gourd....My guess is coping meds...But she took a few too many....

My thoughts, and my rant.

 

[Gil223]

Where is the balanced Media? When will they have a real debate with"experts" from both sides? Personally, I don't have a reason for owning a so called assault rifle, but I can not, and will not discourage someone from owning one. That is not my affair. I wonder sometimes if the true, and genuine Antis have any experience at all with guns to base their opinion(s) on. I wonder why the Media portrays a guy with a gun as a terrible person.

There is no "balance" in media, and hasn't been since the days of what I refer to as "proprietorship newspapers". The guy who ran the presses was also the reporter and editor - but even then the public only got the "facts" as the proprietor saw them to be. Today, with all our major media being owned owned by corporations consisting of publishers and station owners, what we are fed are the political views of those publishers and station owners. A "journalist" who does not sing the company song - word-for-word and on-key - will quickly find himself/herself in the unemployment line. Since reportage is their chosen field of endeavor, the reporter must then choose between reporting what he/she may believe to be right, and their survival in the career. But, what he/she may believe to be right is still colored by their opinion, their life experiences, and their personal political belief system. In times past, if there was a report published which impugned the integrity of the King, the punishment for the writer was usually something of the terminal variety. Today we are more sophisticated, and simply remove the reporters means of earning a living should he or she fail to do the bidding of the media ownership. The integrity of our media is compromised by one's desire to thrive financially and professionally. There's a saying that, "To get along, you must go along" (or words to that effect). Does a true professional compromise his/her standards? In a Utopian world they would not, but there is no Utopia. There never has been, nor will there ever be on this planet. Humans are fallible beings, and we tend to make those decisions which will yield the most benefit to ourselves. To do otherwise would perhaps be commendable, but to do that which is to our detriment - even in the name of altruism - would more likely be viewed as either "appallingly stupid" or "insane".

Regarding the rest of your above-quoted post, I believe our media should at least present the appearance of a balanced forum when discussing any subject.

As of this moment in time (subject to change without notice), we Americans are fortunate to not need "a reason for owning a so-called assault rifle". All we need is the desire, the $$$, and the motivation to run down to our local gun store and buy one. Semi-automatic firearms are not true assault weapons any more than a baseball bat or a golf club is - until it is used to assault somebody. But, nobody ever talks about "assault bats", "assault bottles", "assault vehicles" or "assault ashtrays". Attaching the word "assault" to something automatically gives it more weight, and thereby makes it more dangerous. The word "assault" is semantically similar in that respect to to attaching the term "hate" to "crime". Doing so, defines the crime as an emotion, rather than an act. Both words are used to influence, and hopefully sway, public thought regarding the uncontrolled power of the act. If we look around at the world in general and then ask ourselves, "Is this how things should be?", our answer would invariably be "No... but it's how things are." Get along, go along... or become Don Quixote de la Mancha. Life is all about choices. Pax...