When is saturation coverage of massacres justified?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s ironic that this discussion about limiting the media is happening only in the US who on principle, traditionally value freedom of the press. I know that in Australia, rolling press coverage of tragedies has contributed greatly to the empathetic response and commitment to remedy situations that can only be considered positive. The media coverage of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 led to a significant review of gun laws that totally scuttled the avenue for glorifying massacres. 23 years since then has proved it’s success.
 
The way the coverage is done in the US is not justifiable at all. Someone in Delaware doesn’t need to see live coverage of a tragedy in New Mexico. It’s primarily local news, but that doesn’t stop every news channel from streaming it in order to get people to watch.

You’d have to be a dummy not to know that news channels do not deal in news anymore. That stopped some decades ago. “News” channels are interested in ratings…period. The bigger the revenue stream, the less news you’re getting.

For the last ten plus years people have been concerned about the MSM’s role in perpetuating mass shootings. Every shooter knows that thanks to the MSM’s lack of tact and morals, that they can go out in a blaze of glory with the entire nation watching, and then be talked about ad nauseam until the next one.

I’m sure that saturation coverage of mass shootings is a factor in the MSM’s remarkably bad reputation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top