Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Apr 11, 2018 8:47:50 GMT -5
While it's not so in this particular case, many feel that this sensationalism as it pertains to mass shootings might even encourage the next person to want his/her 15 minutes. If you take an already mentally ill person and add the entire media plastering the shooter's name all over the place, is it possible that the next ill person says to himself/herself, "If I do this, too, at least I'll finally get people to pay attention to me."? I think it's not only possible, but probable.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,987
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Apr 11, 2018 8:48:56 GMT -5
Pictures of dead and dying folks are an affront to public decency.... and very disrespectful to the families imo They should not be shown.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 11, 2018 12:42:30 GMT -5
It did in 2001 and 2003. Couldn't speak a word against invading Iraq or Afghanistan. Here are the images of bodies being dragged from the rubble of the towers again, on a 24-hour loop. Do you think if no one saw images of the burning towers on TV, the US would have just shrugged and ignored the fact that terrorists destroyed those buildings, without demanding revenge? And by the way, plenty of us were against the war in Iraq, since there was nothing tying Hussan to 9-11, but we were shouted down by people who lumped all Muslims together. The response to the Benghazi attack: grief porn. Years of it. Let's get the widow of one of the slain marines up on stage at the RNC and get her to cry for the cameras. Vote Trump! Can't speak against that. (The Democrats did it too, of course.) Not grief porn, that was political spin by the GOP to garner votes. Last May, a US Marine was killed in Somalia, you don't hear much spin about that from the Dems, but they could have chosen to blow that up into an outrage that Trump allowed to happen - but they didn't. I agree, both sides should refrain from trotting out dead soldiers widows for political reasons. Absolutely. Your beloved was just killed, nobody gives a damn, and lo the nation is sitting in sackcloth and ashes for the sake of somebody else's beloved. Even if you're in a rational state of mind--which isn't likely--it's hard not to feel resentment for the unfairness. Seriously? Unless you're a minority parent of a small child who goes missing and the story is ignored while the beautiful blond white girl in the next town over is the subject of vigils and pray meetings and amber alerts, I doubt this EVER happens. Often it manifests as resentment against different groups. Whites, blacks, Muslims, Christians, Americans, Mexicans, rich people, young people, or whoever is being lionized in the media while nobody bats an eyelash for your loss. Again, if you were in a rational and forgiving state of mind, you might reconsider whether the unfairness is truly the result of prejudice. You might reconsider whether begrudging other families their spotlight is moral and wise. But you're angry and suffering. Resentment is an extremely seductive trap to fall into, even years after the fact. Convincing people that what is absolutely none of their business is their business. It deserves its own thread. Humans are rubber neckers who need to slow down to stare at the car wreck as they drive by. That's the nature of the species. An unfortunate characteristic, and one we should try to rise above, but it isn't caused by grief porn - grief porn is a symptom of it.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 11, 2018 13:00:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, how is my country potentially going to war none of my business? How is an increase in police shootings of (black) civilians none of my business? How is a change in abortion/reproductive rights/access to treatments none of my business? Am I supposed to focus on my individual bubble and just hope the big world outside it doesn't come crashing down? I agree that nonstop tragedy is a downer and somewhat sensationalizes tragedies, but should we really sanitize the news to remove all "sad" things? If so, isn't that just a different type of propaganda you're advocating for?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2018 13:02:51 GMT -5
"Move towards this as a response" is not "imposing a law". I'm trying to imagine how we get people to 'move towards' faith based stoicism without somehow making it a legal requirement.
E.g., make it a law that TV and social media cannot post excessively grief filled posts/videos/commentaries, and instead, must carry short reminders to 'trust in God' and "everything happens for a reason' so that people learn to curb their excessive displays?
Sounds Orwellian.
Or maybe there is some other, more organic way to get the North American population to 'move towards' faith based stoicism, something like how an amoeba gradually moves away from the light? I'm curious to hear how that would work.
I didn't take his statement about faith and fortitude as strictly religion. I grew up with the term "faith and fortitude" to be similar as a phrase like 'grieve, then suck it up and move on'. He would have to clarify as to exactly what he meant. To me, his point in this thread is the media announcing, with much hyperbole, what everyone is feeling/how bad it is. That type of information is subjective. My opinion is that a directing premise, really has no place in a news report. Report what happens. Let the viewer decide on the level of impact.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 11, 2018 13:04:36 GMT -5
... Humans are rubber neckers who need to slow down to stare at the car wreck as they drive by. That's the nature of the species. An unfortunate characteristic, and one we should try to rise above, but it isn't caused by grief porn - grief porn is a symptom of it. Working to "raise above" rubbernecking through not buying into grief porn is what I thought Virgil Showlion was suggesting we do from the first line in the OP. TL;DR: "Grief porn" dominates the modern 24-hour news cycle. We need to recognize it and apply appropriate filters in our routine news consumption. ...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 11, 2018 22:01:42 GMT -5
While it's not so in this particular case, many feel that this sensationalism as it pertains to mass shootings might even encourage the next person to want his/her 15 minutes. If you take an already mentally ill person and add the entire media plastering the shooter's name all over the place, is it possible that the next ill person says to himself/herself, "If I do this, too, at least I'll finally get people to pay attention to me."? I think it's not only possible, but probable. Not only probable, but factual. At least as far as the written manifestos of some of these nutters, which I won't cite for obvious reasons. The greater risk is terrorism, where the principal goal is to inspire as much grief and terror as possible. Do you think if no one saw images of the burning towers on TV, the US would have just shrugged and ignored the fact that terrorists destroyed those buildings, without demanding revenge? No, but i) citizens mightn't have been as hasty to jump to conclusions, and mightn't have valued the lives of foreigners so little compared to the lives of Americans, and ii) voices urging restraint mightn't have had their arguments so readily shot down by shameless appeals to emotion. Not grief porn, that was political spin by the GOP to garner votes. Fair enough. I did stipulate "media" in the OP. But it's a similar beast. Seriously? Unless you're a minority parent of a small child who goes missing and the story is ignored while the beautiful blond white girl in the next town over is the subject of vigils and pray meetings and amber alerts, I doubt this EVER happens. "Seriously?" right back at you. Obviously our perceptions and experiences are a world apart. An unfortunate characteristic, and one we should try to rise above, but it isn't caused by grief porn - grief porn is a symptom of it. See billisonboard 's helpful remark. I'll add that macabre curiosity is both a cause and a symptom of grief porn. It feeds on itself, like any other vice or addiction. The media, meanwhile, lives and dies by whether it's serving what the public wants to eat. I'm sorry, how is my country potentially going to war none of my business? How is an increase in police shootings of (black) civilians none of my business? How is a change in abortion/reproductive rights/access to treatments none of my business? Am I supposed to focus on my individual bubble and just hope the big world outside it doesn't come crashing down? I agree that nonstop tragedy is a downer and somewhat sensationalizes tragedies, but should we really sanitize the news to remove all "sad" things? If so, isn't that just a different type of propaganda you're advocating for? There are ways of reporting tragedy without sensationalizing it. Some basic rules have already been mentioned: avoid hyperbolic language, avoid putting bodies on display, mitigate the amount of violence, gore, and carnage displayed, avoid speculation and superfluous analyses. Fix the problem, not the blame. For example, in the case in the OP: omit mention of the coroner office's error, or mention it briefly sans 20 additional minutes of hysteria and wondering out loud "What went wrong?" Neither does a lick of good. Cut with the "public reactions" to loaded questions. Leave the victims' families alone. Focus on the stories of resilience, perseverance, selfless sacrifice, and admirable conduct. Above all, keep any tragedy in proper perspective. We live in a world where war, disease, famine, natural disaster, etc. routinely wipe out hundreds of thousands, even millions of people in the proverbial blink of an eye. The most lethal things in our society are invariably the least sensational: heart disease, cancer, home and workplace accidents, drug and alcohol abuse. Almost by necessity, anything stirred up into a national phenomenon by the media is going to be blown out of proportion hundreds or thousands of times with respect to its relative impact. We willingly engage because we're curious, empathetic, vindictive, and highly social creatures. Human tragedy is fascinating. It's emotionally stimulating, and provides us with a sense of solidarity--neither of which is bad in and of itself. But in the vast majority of cases, mass public engagement is only realizable when we totally disregard the scale of a tragedy. The media (being the media) is in the business of blowing every tragedy, scandal, conflict, and complaint up to the biggest possible scale, emotionally investing as many people as they possibly can, which carries grave consequences. Our consumption and personal willingness to participate should reflect our awareness of this fact.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Apr 12, 2018 7:04:43 GMT -5
Reporters have an "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality and there is nothing new about that. The Humboldt story is a terrible tragedy and is an awful thing and at least reporting it can allow some people to hold these families in their thoughts.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 12, 2018 8:47:35 GMT -5
Yes, news outlets are looking to get viewers and make money, and we all know tragedies get people to tune in. It is not in their interests to change their programming style to work around the flaws of human nature. Also, I have a moral issue with sanitation of the news media... it's a bit too 1984/North Korea for my liking. I do agree that there is a fair amount of unneeded sensationalism in some stories, but there are places you can go for news that have little to no spin.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Apr 12, 2018 9:46:16 GMT -5
So Virgil....if you disregard the posts that are only posted for stalking and name-calling purposes, it would appear that most people here would agree, at least in part, with your OP. It raises some interesting issues. It was a thought-provoking thread that didn't end up quite as badly as I figured it would.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 12, 2018 13:52:50 GMT -5
So Virgil....if you disregard the posts that are only posted for stalking and name-calling purposes, it would appear that most people here would agree, at least in part, with your OP. It raises some interesting issues. It was a thought-provoking thread that didn't end up quite as badly as I figured it would.
That's like saying "if you disregard all the overweight people in the US, it would appear that the American population is lean and fit."
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 12, 2018 13:59:46 GMT -5
Give me one example of "name calling" on this thread. There wasn't any. Furthermore, responding to a thread isn't "stalking". Get a grip.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 12, 2018 17:21:27 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 20:03:14 GMT -5
So Virgil....if you disregard the posts that are only posted for stalking and name-calling purposes, it would appear that most people here would agree, at least in part, with your OP. It raises some interesting issues. It was a thought-provoking thread that didn't end up quite as badly as I figured it would. Weltz isn't stalking. She's just flogging a point while ignoring everyone else's. "Curious George" fallacy. George knocks over a planter, runs a car into a ditch, takes out electricity to half the city, and derails a subway car, all so he can help an old lady bake a pie. It's such a mighty fine pie, though, all is well. Pity it only lasts a few days.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 12, 2018 20:45:51 GMT -5
Humboldt thanks you for your sympathies, Virgil.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 12, 2018 22:14:09 GMT -5
Humboldt thanks you for your sympathies, Virgil. If your cat Sushi died tomorrow, would you care if I sympathized? The sympathy would be sincere. I have a sense of how much you love him from your posts over the years, and I know what it's like to lose a beloved pet. So if you posted tomorrow and were distraught because he'd died, it would grieve me, if only for a day. I'm sure it would touch many here. Would our empathy and sympathy matter to you? Would you even disclose the death to us? Or would you limit disclosure to family and friends until the worst had passed? I won't say years of public interaction between YMAM members makes us "close" per se, but we're a lot closer than the average Canadian is to any one of the Humboldt players. We know you and know about Sushi. You know us, and quite a bit about us in some cases. The average Canadian putting up sympathetic tributes to the Humboldt victims doesn't know them, knows nothing about them except what the media has put out in eulogy, knows nothing about the families they're supposedly feeling sorry for. So if you can't tell me in all honesty that you'd elect to share your tragedy with YMAM, and that my express sympathy and the sympathy of other acquaintances here would significantly impact your emotional state for the better, why should I, you, or anyone conceivably expect better results for the Humboldt families? If you can make such a claim, I'll concede there might be more good than bad in this particular case, hyperbole, media hysteria, and all.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 12, 2018 22:36:48 GMT -5
Of course I would share, and of course it would help. I'd share here, with my old co-workers, people who have never met Sushi, and it wouldn't keep so isolated in my grief.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 7:17:05 GMT -5
Don't say "Of course..." anything.
I wouldn't share, except possibly to explain my mood in response to a query. And others' sympathy wouldn't help.
But true to my word: perhaps the particular example of "grief porn" in the OP is a poor example in the sense that the good will outweigh the bad. As already mentioned, most of the major pitfalls don't apply, and the rest hinge on whether the bombardment of sympathy is ultimately a boon or a bane to the grieving families.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 13, 2018 13:02:03 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 13:19:50 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information. The media is one group that gets to determine how much is revealed. People involved have a part in that they can not open a door or answer a phone. Audience (or lack there of) will influence the media's allocation of time and resources.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:29:01 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information.Why not? It's a news report from the media isn't it. I would never consider that type of report as entertainment. News Report Definition; Definition of News Reporting. News reporting involves discovering all relevant facts, selecting and presenting the important facts and weaving a comprehensive story. Reporting involves hard work, which in turn involves stamina and patience. The main function of journalistic profession is news reporting.www.studylecturenotes.com/journalism-mass-communication/news-reporting-definition-types-and-perquisites
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:30:48 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information. The media is one group that gets to determine how much is revealed. People involved have a part in that they can not open a door or answer a phone. Audience (or lack there of) will influence the media's allocation of time and resources. Acceptance of this, allows the media to mislead by omission.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 13:41:12 GMT -5
The media is one group that gets to determine how much is revealed. People involved have a part in that they can not open a door or answer a phone. Audience (or lack there of) will influence the media's allocation of time and resources. Acceptance of this, allows the media to mislead by omission. I am not seeing where "acceptance" really has play in this. Media will do what it does.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 21:24:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 14:03:09 GMT -5
Acceptance of this, allows the media to mislead by omission. I am not seeing where "acceptance" really has play in this. Media will do what it does. If it is not accepted, the channel is changed. Viewership declines along with revenue. Media is a business requiring income from sales. Do I really need to tell you this?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 14:29:53 GMT -5
... Do I really need to tell you this? See Post #79
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 16:26:18 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information. I'm afraid it's up to us to check our consumption habits, and advise others to check theirs. That's all we can do. Any attempt to police the media for e.g. "hyperbolic reporting" in this day and age would be inviting blackouts of truly important events and stories--those that really do impact all of us.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 13, 2018 16:31:25 GMT -5
but where do we draw the line? Who gets to determine how much of a tragedy is revealed (or when? or how?)? You can't take a purely utilitarian approach to the dissemination of information. I'm afraid it's up to us to check our consumption habits, and advise others to check theirs. That's all we can do. Any attempt to police the media for e.g. "hyperbolic reporting" in this day and age would be inviting blackouts of truly important events and stories--those that really do impact all of us. but isn't this what already happens?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 13, 2018 16:43:33 GMT -5
I'm really glad that because of all the news coverage, they raised over 10 million dollars to help the families out. They're going to need it, from funeral costs to helping the survivors. They're going to need.....
Special wheelchairs Ceiling Hoyer lifts Adapted ramps to get into their homes Adaptions to bathrooms and making doors wider Vans with motorized lifts Crutches andbraces Medications and Physio Psychological counselling Everything from urinary catheters to diapers
That's just the short list.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,479
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 17:23:50 GMT -5
I'm afraid it's up to us to check our consumption habits, and advise others to check theirs. That's all we can do. Any attempt to police the media for e.g. "hyperbolic reporting" in this day and age would be inviting blackouts of truly important events and stories--those that really do impact all of us. but isn't this what already happens? Some do seem to check their consumption habits while others just seem to eat up everything put in front of them.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 13, 2018 19:45:22 GMT -5
but isn't this what already happens? Some do seem to check their consumption habits while others just seem to eat up everything put in front of them. A good many people are genuinely incapable of filtering, since pop media is the entity that's taught them what they ought to digest and not digest. In a sense: "If it's out there, and legal, it must be OK to consume. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be legal and nobody would want to consume it anyway." It's amazing at how completely people's reservations about imbibing death, suffering, carnage, misery, tragedy, scandal, vengeance, pride, hatred, etc. can be disarmed by adding in just a bit of good. "Curious George," as I call it.
|
|