RANT thread

[teckmaster]

I'm watching the news and all they talk about is Anthrax this and Anthrax that. If you wanna do something about the anthrax problem, stop reporting about it. The media makes everything worse. After the attacks on September 11th, all the medias started talking about chemical warfare. I believe and always have believed that if it wasn't for the media, have the stuff that goes on wouldn't. Another good example was the school shooting out in Columbine a couple years ago. If not for the media, we wouldn't have had all the copy cats phoninh in fake bomb threats and stuff. Just like now, if the media hadn't started all this bullcrap about chemical warfare then we wouldn't have to worry about it. Who's to blame for the Anthrax outbreak? I'll tell you who's not to blame, Osama and the Taliban. Our very own news media people are to blame.

 

[pulse8]

So basically what you're saying is that if we don't see it on TV, it doesn't exist?

 

[777joee]

Well I do think that our media will go to the limit to be first and the real story will suffer along with our society.


Just my $.02



Edit: Another thought:

I know we all need to know the latest but just how long can you beat a dead horse? It is still dead.



I guess that I'm up to $.03 now

 

[teckmaster]

what I'm saying is, is that yes the possibility exists but with the news media jumping on things, it increases the possibility 100 fold. We probably wouldn't have had one case of anthrax if it wasn't for the media. They report on things and it gives people ideas

 

[Swag1138]

What hes saying, and its a very valid point, is that the Media allows people who want to do these things to put in the minimum effort for the maximum effect. You can send 10 real anthrax spores out, and with the media reporting it, the entire nation (or just the Plebes) will be scared to fricken hell that they will catch anthrax if they open their mail. I know several people who are scared to fly, scared to open junk mail (but really, arent we all?) and all thanks to the Media doing its "public duty"

I think that the 24 hour news channels are the worst thing that could have ever happened to the US.

 

[pulse8]

You're psychotic.

If there are terrorists sending out Anthrax and no one knows to look for it because they haven't seen it in the news, the cases would be 10x what we have already.

Edit: It does scare people, but better safe than sorry.

 

[vi edit]

<< what I'm saying is, is that yes the possibility exists but with the news media jumping on things, it increases the possibility 100 fold. We probably wouldn't have had one case of anthrax if it wasn't for the media. They report on things and it gives people ideas >>



I think that a tom clancy book offers far more intriguing ideas to a sabotistic mind.

Also, it's not the medias fault (completely) that people are dumb.

 

[teckmaster]

but if it wasn't for the media saying that since the terrorists have hit our buildings and we are going to fight back and chemical warfare is going to be involved then there wouldn't be one case of anthrax out there.

 

[pulse8]

That's rediculous!!

The news media only reports on things that have happened. If they have happened, someone has already thought of it.

The idea that because the news media reported one Anthrax case and it gave someone the idea of sending it through the mail is silly.

 

[khtm]

<< You're psychotic. >>


Where'd that come from? I think teckmaster's point is valid. The media tends to blow everything out of proportion and in fact aids terrorists to perform their job - strike "terror" into the hearts of many people. The media is also responsible for giving ideas to copycat criminals. These "psychopaths" watch TV and think "Hmmm...If I strap a bomb to my chest and run around the airport screaming, think what a celebrity I will be! Everyone all over the world will know who I am, thanks to the media!".


<< Also, it's not the medias fault (completely) that people are dumb. >>


I agree. People are responsible for their own actions.

-khtm-

 

[Swag1138]

The media does report what happened, but they tend to sensationalize it. You dont spend hours on hours on hours talking about how bad anthrax is. You scare the hell out of people that way. What you do is say the threat is there, heres how to identify it, if caught early enough its treatable, so just be careful.

What they do is cause so much sensation that people go out and hoard antibiotics keeping them from the people who might actually NEED them. You inflame the hypochondriachs, and the latent hypocondriachs, and the all around paranoid by sensationlizing things so much, but they have to do it to stay in buisness. Thus why I say that the 24 hour news channels are the worst possible thing the US has ever come up with.

 

[pulse8]

His point on the media blowing everything out of proportion is accurate, but he's psychotic in the fact that he feels that the media is responsible for giving people ideas on how to conduct their own terror.

Is this not out of whack?

Yes, the media does cause some panic, but that's the way it goes. The idea that they are giving people ideas on ways to terrorize our society further is twisted.

 

[teckmaster]

I'll give you another example. I watched the report live today on CNN about the two postal workers that died. Tom Ridge said that they are treating the case as if anthrax were to blame because they don't have the test results yet. My local news station just said that two postal workers died from anthrax exposure. its funny how the news media knows the answers but the experts don't.

 

[pulse8]

How is that an example that the news reporting on it has given someone the idea of doing it??

I agree with your other point.

 

[khtm]

<< The idea that they are giving people ideas on ways to terrorize our society further is twisted. >>


Twisted for you and me and 99% of the people on this board, but all it takes is one crazy lunatic (walk downtown in a big city and you see about 10 of them every block talking to themselves) to think that the latest terrorist attack sounds like something they want to try. Or, another example would be kids bringing guns to school and shooting people - I guarantee this wouldn't happen as often as it has if the media never reported any of these stories.

-khtm-

 

[Lucky]

<< I'll give you another example. I watched the report live today on CNN about the two postal workers that died. Tom Ridge said that they are treating the case as if anthrax were to blame because they don't have the test results yet. My local news station just said that two postal workers died from anthrax exposure. its funny how the news media knows the answers but the experts don't. >>




Well then you know what? Call the frickin news station and bitch em out. You are naive to think they represent the entire journalistic community.

Whats even worse if you saying the people like me are causing this crap. We report the news, that is our job. If there is a case of anthrax, we arent just gonna sit back and ignore what the potential consequences are. Are you now going to blame hollywood for the world trade center attack because a few fantasy films might have given the terrorists the idea?

And the crap you spew about columbine is absolute sh!t! :| I've seen the footage and pictures from the first media on the scene...they were there before the fricking police were. They risked their lives going over there. To say that we are not supposed to cover the largest school massacre in history because we might create "copycats" is ridiculous.

Jesus, go move to afghanistan or somewhere where you are not able to have a free press or get the real news on what is going on...If you cannot handle the media reporting the impact and significance of the current events around us, then maybe you shouldnt know at all.


We may sensationalize things, but that is the nature of the business. I doubt many people would want to listen to news if it was completely banal and boring. But to say that we CAUSED this..jesus christ, that ludicrous.

 

[khtm]

Luckster, settle down. Nobody said the media "CAUSED" anything. I'm a firm believer in people being responsible for their own actions. All I was saying is that the media definitely contributes to some crimes that occur. 90% of news now a days is based on sex and violence and crimes (or a combination of the three). Why do you think this is? It's because this type of news is what sells. Obviously I just pulled that statistic out of my ass, but you get the picture.

Sure, I'd like to hear about a high-school massacre as much as you, but the media OVER-BROADCASTS stories like this. And this over-broadcasting gives people ideas. That's the way life works. I believe that people are a product of their environment, and if their environment consists of watching a 24-hour news station that is based primarily on the latest terrorist attack or school shooting, then what are these people going to be subconsciencely thinking about?

Just my thougts though. You obviously don't have to agree with them, but comments like

<< Jesus, go move to afghanistan or somewhere >>

simply help to demonstrate your ignorance.

-khtm-

 

[Josh3D]

<< The news media only reports on things that have happened. If they have happened, someone has already thought of it. >>



Not true, media reported that biological and chemical weapons could be the next step before any letters were sent and before any statements were made. They mentioned Anthrax and smallpox.

I am not saying that smallteck is right, but the thought is not that far-fetched if you think about it.

 

[Josh3D]

<< Jesus, go move to afghanistan or somewhere where you are not able to have a free press or get the real news on what is going on...If you cannot handle the media reporting the impact and significance of the current events around us, then maybe you shouldnt know at all. >>



However, the media isn't doing this because they are being "nice" if they can sensationalize it they will, they will blow it out of proportion if they have half a chance and i would not call that thruthworthy reporting of current events.

So i guess you will tell me to go to afghanistan too now?

I do agree, the media can NEVER be more to blame than the ones commiting the terror acts, but they can stir things up too much with their overdramatic presentations.

 

[Bulk Beef]

<< Also, it's not the medias fault (completely) that people are dumb. >>


They do cater to the lowest common denominator, so they're not helping.

 

[Lucky]

Luckster, settle down. Nobody said the media "CAUSED" anything.


<banging my head against the wall>

Im sorry, I must have misread the comments:


<<<Our very own news media people are to blame.>>>
<<<If not for the media, we wouldn't have had all the copy cats phoninh in fake bomb threats and stuff>>>
<<<They report on things and it gives people ideas >>>
<<<but if it wasn't for the media saying that since the terrorists have hit our buildings and we are going to fight back and chemical warfare is going to be involved then there wouldn't be one case of anthrax out there>>>



Just my thougts though. You obviously don't have to agree with them, but comments like

<< Jesus, go move to afghanistan or somewhere >>

simply help to demonstrate your ignorance.


My ignorance? This twit is saying the media is directly responsible for the terrorist attacks. He is saying that the media should not have covered columbine. Does any other rational person agree with this? I cannot fathom how I am showing ignorance arguing against someone who is saying the the media is the one to directly blame for terrorist attacks.


However, the media isn't doing this because they are being "nice" if they can sensationalize it they will, they will blow it out of proportion if they have half a chance and i would not call that thruthworthy reporting of current events.


Any journalist with integrity will not go out of his/her way to sensationalize an event that has no importance or relevance. We arent purposely trying to get everyone's panties in a bunch. But when you got planes unprecedented events such as terrorists invading our turf, crashing planes into buildings and distributing anthrax, its hard not to get caught up in the moment.

And as much as you want to argue that they cover it too much and blow it out of proportion, I would much rather have more coverage than neccesary than too little. That may be my nature as Im in the profession,but its not like the whole nation doesnt give two sh*ts about anthrax. People want to know, and we give news and information to them.

 

[Josh3D]

<< And as much as you want to argue that they cover it too much and blow it out of proportion, I would much rather have more coverage than neccesary than too little. That may be my nature as Im in the profession,but its not like the whole nation doesnt give two sh*ts about anthrax. People want to know, and we give news and information to them. >>



No, i never said anything about more or less coverage, i am all for more coverage, i said that blowing a situation out of proportion to get more viewers or more buyers is not all that great.

A good report regarding Anthrax would not blow it out of proportions, it would state the facts regarding the bacteria, the possible treatments, the vaccin and not blowing the risks out of proportion. If you are a private person you are not likely to become infected, if you do there are effective treatments, more people would die from traffic accidents even if the disease was widespread, but of course, such information is not newsworthy...

 

[b0mbrman]

What channel are you watching that is playing the anthrax story for hours and hours? I know NBC, CBS, FOX, etc... only talk about it on their normal news shows.

Perhaps the problem is that you're watching CNN or MSNBC and that means you *want* to see the news.

Trust me, the media wouldn't play it if you, Johnny American, wouldn't watch it