NAVSEA Shooter - DC

[dank69]

Keep it up. The bolded is the logical fallacy that is getting your panties in a wad. Keeping people from tuning out doesn't increase viewership. Only adding viewers does that. You could easily increase viewership whilst people are tuning out. I never said anything about keeping viewers from tuning out, that was your little straw man argument.

Wow, the goal is more viewers and keeping people from tuning out helps meet that goal. No matter how you phrase it, your position in this thread doesn't hold up.

Why are you harping on an issue that we've all but dismissed instead of answering the current question, which is about the issue of getting more people to tune in?

 

[dank69]

Do you honestly believe that the uneducated masses view shotguns the same as "assault weapons"?

Look at Crazy Joe post-Sandy Hook. "You don't need an AR -15, buy a shotgun!" Look at the media reporting on these "weapons of war".

The bottom line is that a killing spree perpetrated by a man or woman with an AR -15 works the masses up into a frenzy much more effectively than any other type of weapon because people are more afraid of them. I imagine those frenzied viewers watch the news longer with fewer channel changes. I have no source for that outside of observing people around me during these tragedies. I imagine how these events effect viewership is a closely guarded secret in the offices of these media conglomerates.

I am not surprised you are confusing two issues. The issue we are discussing is what effect a reporter on TV uttering the word AR-15 has during a breaking news story. The issue you are arguing is that when all is said and done, if a perp. actually uses an AR as opposed to a shotgun then the country goes into a frenzy. I am not arguing against the latter, I am discussing the former. You should bring a guide along with you when you venture into P&N so you don't get lost.

 

[xBiffx]

Wow, the goal is more viewers and keeping people from tuning out helps meet that goal. No matter how you phrase it, your position in this thread doesn't hold up.

Why are you harping on an issue that we've all but dismissed instead of answering the current question?

Why would I help you argue a straw man? Oh now it "helps meet that goal". That changes everything about a position I never argued.

Nowhere has my position been dismissed except by you.

You keep going full retard though, its quite entertaining. Keep arguing that using "AR15" rather than "shotgun" doesn't get people's attention.

 

[dank69]

Why would I help you argue a straw man? Oh now it "helps meet that goal". That changes everything about a position I never argued.

Nowhere has my position been dismissed except by you.

You keep going full retard though, its quite entertaining. Keep arguing that using "AR15" rather than "shotgun" doesn't get people's attention.

Biff, I know you are capable of following a train of conversation so why are you dancing around the current question? We moved past the "straw man" many, many posts ago. You said:

Where did I say that? Never said people are going to tune out. I did say that more people are going to tune in if you approach every hot button issue in the news by using a catchphrase intended to turn heads towards your programming.

I am asking you a question about that statement specifically:

Okay, so people don't tune out when they hear "shotgun" as opposed to "AR-15." You are conceding this point then?

So your theory is that, perhaps through word of mouth, people hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using a shotgun" and they don't care at all, but if they hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using an AR-15" they drop what they are doing to find out more? Do I have that right now?

It's not that difficult.

 

[xBiffx]

We moved past the "straw man" many, many posts ago.

Obviously not.

So your theory is that, perhaps through word of mouth, people hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using a shotgun" and they don't care at all, but if they hear "mass shooting taking place in Navy yard, perp. is using an AR-15" they drop what they are doing to find out more? Do I have that right now?

Perhaps, someday, you'll figure out the problem with that question. Hint: its starts with straw.

 

[FerrelGeek]

It's all so simple when your agenda is to misinform and scare.

 

[Brigandier]

Killer's Mom Releases Statement

Good on her for not pulling the "he was such a sweet boy" line.

 

[woolfe9998]

Killer's Mom Releases Statement

Good on her for not pulling the "he was such a sweet boy" line.

This guy was pretty clearly delusional. Not just sociopathic but batshit insane.

 

[Exterous]

Yes, I'm saying that it wasn't an intent to deceive, and I'm also saying it wasn't negligent either. It isn't negligent to report what law enforcement sources are saying in a breaking story. This isn't like an investigative piece where there is time to prepare the article and generally at least 2 independent sources are sought for each fact. There is no time to do that with a breaking story. It's standard to report what you're told and correct any inaccuracies as new information comes in. There simply isn't any other way to do it.

This isn't a black and white situation and 'law enforcement sources' is very vague. I am not saying this is true for this situation but in an age where blog and twitter posts are taken as credible sources to base a story on I am suspicious of the media's desire to use credible or relevant law enforcement sources as opposed to being the first to broadcast attention grabbing headlines.

Of course some inaccuracies are to be expected in breaking stories but there seems to be an increase in the desire to break the news first from whatever source is available and deal with inaccuracies later. This is only exacerbated considering Americans have the attention span of goldfish and never really pay attention to the later corrections. The AR15 and the virtual recreations of the shooter with an assault rifle stay in peoples minds while the actual chain of events falls off to the side

 

[woolfe9998]

This isn't a black and white situation and 'law enforcement sources' is very vague. I am not saying this is true for this situation but in an age where blog and twitter posts are taken as credible sources to base a story on I am suspicious of the media's desire to use credible or relevant law enforcement sources as opposed to being the first to broadcast attention grabbing headlines.

Of course some inaccuracies are to be expected in breaking stories but there seems to be an increase in the desire to break the news first from whatever source is available and deal with inaccuracies later. This is only exacerbated considering Americans have the attention span of goldfish and never really pay attention to the later corrections. The AR15 and the virtual recreations of the shooter with an assault rifle stay in peoples minds while the actual chain of events falls off to the side

It's hard to say to what extent the inaccurate details stick in people's mind. Undoubtedly it's true for some people. There are many who won't remember any details about the particular weapon used. Others will be fascinated and follow the story for days or weeks and hence pick up on the corrections. Still others may remember very well early inaccurate accounts but not read any further.

You may be correct that there is an increased tendency to rely on unofficial law enforcement sources in order to publish earlier at the expense of accuracy. It's because of competition in the news business. I wish it were different but it's the nature of news as a competitive business.

 

[irishScott]

Wow, for once I completely agree with CNN's commentary: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[werepossum]

Killer's Mom Releases Statement

Good on her for not pulling the "he was such a sweet boy" line.

Agreed, a classy response in her time of grief.

Wow, for once I completely agree with CNN's commentary: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Agreed, that's a great article.

 

[exdeath]

Bump because I like how everyone quickly swept this shooting under the rug when they found out it was a shotgun and there were no "assault weapons" used.

 

[irishScott]

Bump because I like how everyone quickly swept this shooting under the rug when they found out it was a shotgun and there were no "assault weapons" used.

Our local gun grabbers are also conspicuously absent.

 

[TerryMathews]

Our local gun grabbers are also conspicuously absent.

But but but the type of weapon used has no bearing on viewership. Amirite?

 

[spidey07]

But but but the type of weapon used has no bearing on viewership. Amirite?

State law prevented him from purchasing an assault rifle otherwise we would have had a real mass shooting spree. This is the angle being spun.

Of course that is a flat out lie.

Then again, front page of cnn website not a single story about it and it's barely been 48 hours. Just like I said, this will be gone before the weekend. Black guy with a shotgun isn't part of the agenda/propaganda. Reference that with other shooting sprees and it's front and center for two-3 weeks.

 

[BoberFett]

The way things are going, it's starting to sound like HIPAA is to blame for this country's mass shootings, not guns.

 

[woolfe9998]

Wow, for once I completely agree with CNN's commentary: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Yeah, very good commentary there.

 

[woolfe9998]

State law prevented him from purchasing an assault rifle otherwise we would have had a real mass shooting spree. This is the angle being spun.

Of course that is a flat out lie.

Then again, front page of cnn website not a single story about it and it's barely been 48 hours. Just like I said, this will be gone before the weekend. Black guy with a shotgun isn't part of the agenda/propaganda. Reference that with other shooting sprees and it's front and center for two-3 weeks.

There's an entire set of links to various stories about this shooting on the front page of cnn.com. Right now as I type this.

http://www.cnn.com/

Not to mention the anti-gun control CNN editorial that was posted by Irish above.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

There's an entire set of links to various stories about this shooting on the front page of cnn.com. Right now as I type this.

http://www.cnn.com/

Not to mention the anti-gun control CNN editorial that was posted by Irish above.

Ya but they are cleverly hidden under an ambitious banner of "Navy Yard Rampage" and buried at the top of the page.

Edit: goddammit they changed the page from when i looked earlier and now it's even more prominent.

 

[dank69]

Obviously not.



Perhaps, someday, you'll figure out the problem with that question. Hint: its starts with straw.

If that is a straw man, then your answer is no. Therefore, you don't think a news reporter uttering the word AR-15 has any effect on viewership, since it doesn't keep viewers tuned in and doesn't cause more people to tune in. Grats on being wrong once again.

For future reference, if someone uses a straw man against you and asks if you agree with it then you can just say no, since that's the nature of a straw man. You'll quickly shut down their argument instead of dancing around like a clown. However, since a no answer to the question you claim is a straw man strengthens my argument, that is YOUR clue that it wasn't a straw man in the first place. This message was brought to you by the letter Q and the number 3.

 

[spidey07]

There's an entire set of links to various stories about this shooting on the front page of cnn.com. Right now as I type this.

http://www.cnn.com/

Not to mention the anti-gun control CNN editorial that was posted by Irish above.

there wasn't a single article on the page when I posted. Not one.

This will be forgotten about just as I said. Black guy with a shotgun = not a story they want to publish. Doesn't line up to the agenda and any talk of gun control will freak out hunting fudds with their shotguns.

 

[dank69]

there wasn't a single article on the page when I posted. Not one.

This will be forgotten about just as I said. Black guy with a shotgun = not a story they want to publish. Doesn't line up to the agenda and any talk of gun control will freak out hunting fudds with their shotguns.

That's because you get all your "cnn links" from stormfront. Next time just type cnn into the address bar.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

there wasn't a single article on the page when I posted. Not one.

This will be forgotten about just as I said. Black guy with a shotgun = not a story they want to publish. Doesn't line up to the agenda and any talk of gun control will freak out hunting fudds with their shotguns.

Bullshit. I went to CNN.com minutes after your post and on the left side under the main image was an entire section titled "Navy Yard Rampage". Stories, video, etc...

 

[spidey07]

Bullshit. I went to CNN.com minutes after your post and on the left side under the main image was an entire section titled "Navy Yard Rampage". Stories, video, etc...

Bullshit to you libtard.

I will NOT allow your lies to be continued anymore. You're a fucking liberal, you lie, you are not to be trusted. Everything you say is a lie.