is media responsible for driving demand, or society responsible for driving supply?

A lot of posts on FB about the media's sensationalism of the killers and how it promotes other retards. I submit it is society's appetite for info on the killers that drives the media frenzy... and understandably. When an irrational act makes headlines, of course the first knee-jerk reaction is "why?" and that question leads us to the killer.

but I've been ostracized for submitting such an opinion and told the media drives everyting. :/

what do you think?

personally, I think f2b

The media does not create the world it inhabits, rather it exists within our world. I would venture to say this means it is reflective of society, and not the other way around.

Originally Posted by tock172

The media does not create the world it inhabits, rather it exists within our world. I would venture to say this means it is reflective of society, and not the other way around.

It's definitely a mixture, but overwhelmingly I (like you) think society dictates media

The "purchase decision" is totally under the control of the consumer. People that blame the media are abdicating responsibility for themselves.

Don't like the show, turn it off. Don't like the paper, don't buy it. Don't like the website content, don't click the link.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

The "purchase decision" is totally under the control of the consumer. People that blame the media are abdicating responsibility for themselves.

Don't like the show, turn it off. Don't like the paper, don't buy it. Don't like the website content, don't click the link.

so do we have a responsibility to not care about teh shooters....

or is it human nature to ask "why?", and the attention is an unfortunate by-product?

ya but guys just think, F2B

When one looks at the totalitarian state in which we procreate, emaciate, and castrate, one sees that the news can only do so much. F2b on the other hand drives the supply and demand with his socioeconomic tactics, which are similar to that of Condoleezza Rice, which of course brought us into 9/11.

Originally Posted by B_Cyrus

When one looks at the totalitarian state in which we procreate, emaciate, and castrate, one sees that the news can only do so much. F2b on the other hand drives the supply and demand with his socioeconomic tactics, which are similar to that of Condoleezza Rice, which of course brought us into 9/11.

I don't find that to be very appropriate at all.

Originally Posted by B_Cyrus

I don't find that to be very appropriate at all.

make gifs at gifsoup

f2b

Everyone thinks the US is full of school and mall shootings. In reality, it is just a copycat of Columbine. These idiots see (from the news) that it hits home to a lot of people if you terrorize a public place like a mall, theater, or school and it inflicts massive social harm, so they all do it. They also know people are defenseless, so it makes it a lot easier.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Everyone thinks the US is full of school and mall shootings. In reality, it is just a copycat of Columbine. These idiots see (from the news) that it hits home to a lot of people if you terrorize a public place like a mall, theater, or school and it inflicts massive social harm, so they all do it. They also know people are defenseless, so it makes it a lot easier.

so you're suggesting we ignore the motives/person? focus on the victims and say 'who cares about the cause'?

Originally Posted by broey v

so you're suggesting we ignore the motives/person? focus on the victims and say 'who cares about the cause'?

Actually, I am all for ignoring the motive/person. I think a lot of these people do it (for some sick reason) to make "a statement". I think, in their twisted mind, they think they can get their message across.

I would prefer if the news reported they story as "Some a$$hole shot a bunch of people today". Don't give them a forum from which to speak.

"Jeremy spoke in class today". Eddie Vedder was a bit prophetic.

i despise the media

The media airs what people respond to, and what there is a demand for. We want to know the name and the story of the people who commit crimes like this. Just look at the threads on here and look at social media - noone in particular is driving these threads, and yet people post pictures of the killer because they are curious.

We create the demand for information on events, and silencing the supply is futile. People will seek information.

Originally Posted by broey v

so you're suggesting we ignore the motives/person? focus on the victims and say 'who cares about the cause'?

No, it was just an observation. The media attention quickly educated these nuts that the easiest way to "go out with a bang" is to terrorize people in a "safe haven" type environment, a place where most feel at ease.

Originally Posted by nfrs2000nyc

no, it was just an observation. The media attention quickly educated these nuts that the easiest way to "go out with a bang" is to terrorize people in a "safe haven" type environment, a place where most feel at ease.

+1

Originally Posted by broey v

so do we have a responsibility to not care about teh shooters....

or is it human nature to ask "why?", and the attention is an unfortunate by-product?

It's not a matter of not caring. It's a matter of us as media consumers making the choice to only "buy" from sources that act in a reasonable fashion when reporting on incidents like this.

The airwaves, print media and websites are completely saturated with "reports" on this incident. How many times do we need to see the aerial shot of the school with the cop cars in the parking lots? How many interviews with little kids do we need to see? How many articles need to include pictures of wailing parents? How many talking heads do we need to see telling us how sad and tragic this is?

Hell, I live in LA and the LOCAL news here yesterday spent almost all their time on it. As if LA reporters are going to have something to say that's different than what the national network reporters say.

We're drawn to spectacle and sensationalism. Think about the traffic jams caused by rubber-neckers at car accidents. Think about what happens in a bar when a fight breaks out. We stare, we maneuver to get a better view, we gawk. THAT is what we as consumers need to overcome.

The media sells us all that because we've proven time and time again that's what we'll buy.

From the images posted above, Freeman's alleged statement mentions how he'd like the story reported, but it's not done that way "because it doesn't sell." Well, whose fault is that?

The third reply says the sound bites are priceless only to the reporters. That's The reporters get paid to get those sound bites because their station knows consumers will eat it up, and if they aren't the station that has it, they'll lose out to those that do.

We as consumers have to turn off the TV, change the channel, not click the link, not buy the paper and only "buy" news from sources that don't sensationalize, don't saturate, and act in a fashion we consider reasonable.

Now, we can take it a step further and intentionally not do business with companies that advertise with news sources we find objectionable. But even without doing that, if the ratings jump for PBS, WSJ or some of the other non-sexy media sources, the money will follow.

I guess what I'm saying is it's not about caring. It's about satiating our appetite for such things with smaller portions that are more nutritious.