Two shooting incidents yesterday, it will be interesting to see how quickly they disappear from most mainstream national news reporting and most left wing social media accounts.
https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/2046211022206255216?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
18 comments:
?
Sigh. Why would they "disappear..."?
Conspiracy theorists are so obtuse and just weird.
Also, there were WAY more than two shooting incidents yesterday, fyi.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours
Thanks to our unnatural and atypically violent, gun-soaked culture, there were at least DOZENS of shootings and murders on April 19th in the US.
They’ll disappear from national headlines because they don’t align with the narrative. Especially now that we know that the LA shooter got off easy for an earlier gun crime in a school zone.
Coming from someone so soaked in conspiracy theories, this is amusing. Meanwhile, I just look at how certain shootings/crimes are covered versus others.
Well, I never claimed that I was providing an exhaustive listing of every shooting in a country of 330,000,000, did I?
Is it beyond your comprehension that I was referring to the two shootings that got NATIONAL coverage?
I went to your link, and clicked on some of the “sources” for their data. Every one I checked was based on a Facebook post. Not “real journalists” at “real journalism outlets”, but Facebook.
If you’re going to demand that I hold to a certain standard, then it’d be nice if you held yourself to the same standard.
If I have time to dig through your collection of FB posts, and compare them to actual news stories, it’ll be interesting to see if any commonalities show up.
I’d be shocked if the majority of the shooters didn’t have multiple priors.
So, how long do you estimate the national news should cover a given story of a shooting? How much time is the "right" amount of time to cover when a former soldier and Christian kills eight children?
As of today, it's been three days. Do you suspect the Conspirers have decided it can be covered for two more days, then the Illuminati will no longer allow news coverage?
Do you not see how conspiratorial your little worries sound, as if there is someone "pulling the strings" behind the media to see "how quickly they disappear from most mainstream national news reporting..."?
Also, is Fox News covering this story still? Do you suspect that Right leaning news and "news-ish" groups cover these stories longer than moderate/normal news agencies? Or that they both/all stop covering it in a few weeks or less?
There is no conspiracy here. What there IS, is a violence problem in our nation driven primarily by men and exacerbated by easy access to firearms and a culture that glorifies Violence as Answer.
Just look to our current military "leadership" for evidence of that sort of weak-minded, cowardly stupidity.
I know that shootings that fit the narrative drag on for weeks, those that don’t disappear in hours or days.
As I’ve never suggested a conspiracy, it’s bizarre that you’re arguing against something I’ve never said.
Craig: "As I’ve never suggested a conspiracy, it’s bizarre that you’re arguing against something I’ve never said."
ALSO Craig:
"I know that shootings that
fit the narrative
drag on for weeks, those that don’t disappear in hours or days."
You are saying outright that there is "a narrative" that "fit" what journalists are presumably promoting. There IS no "narrative" that journalists have secretly agreed upon (what would that even be? To minimize coverage if the shooter is black or trans or something?! To maximize coverage when the shooter is a white conservative male?? Seriously, lighten up, Frances.) That's conspiracy talk in adult conversation circles.
Craig, conspiratorially, said:
I just look at how certain shootings/crimes are covered versus others.
You know, you're right! Just look at how the media no longer mentions Charlie Kirk's shooting or covers his shooter's trial!
Oh wait. They ARE still talking about it.
How about the way that your president is still demanding investigations into the guy that tried to kill him? Oh, wait, he ISN'T mentioning that any more, is he? Well, how about the way that your president is still demanding investigations into the right wing pedophile ring run by Epstein? OH WAIT! He's NOT demanding further investigations into that and instead, he and "his" (literally his, now) justice department are saying there is "nothing to see here..."
You're finding conspiracies where none exist and swallowing the camel while straining the gnat.
Craig:
I know that shootings that fit the narrative drag on for weeks, those that don’t disappear in hours or days.
So, I ask again:
how long do you estimate the national news should cover a given story of a shooting? How much time is the "right" amount of time to cover when a former soldier and Christian kills eight children?
Where, exactly did I say that there was a perfect, right, amount of time?
I do appreciate how you ignore the fact that the (presumably) LA shooter was a felon who was prevented from owning a gun and focus on his presumed Christianity.
Where exactly does Christian doctrine condone killing one’s children?
Kirk’s shooting has been out of the MSM for months. The fact that there is movement in the prosecution of the shooter is actually new news.
Excellent job of ignoring your FB “news” source and making this about Trump.
Yes, shootings that move one narrative forward are covered more than shootings that don’t. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s observable reality.
Yes, I’m saying that certain shootings disappear from the MSM quickly if they don’t fit a narrative.
Again, you making up a conspiracy doesn’t mean one exists.
If nothing else, it’s simple math. When @90% of MSM journalists share a political ideology, human nature suggests that they see things through a similar lens.
No conspiracy, just human nature.
Craig:
Where, exactly did I say that there was a perfect, right, amount of time?
sigh. Where, exactly, did I SAY that you said there was a perfect, right amount of time? I didn't. I was responding to your conspiratorial claim: "I know that shootings that fit the narrative drag on for weeks, those that don’t disappear in hours or days."
You appear, then, to be thinking that SOME stories (the ones you deem should be covered longer?? you tell me...) aren't covered for a long enough time, while OTHER stories (the ones you deem needn't be covered as much?? You tell me...) are covered too much. I'm asking you the reasonable question: How long should local shooting stories be covered? You appear to have an opinion.
Also, you appear to be suggesting an inequity in how "some" stories are covered "a lot" while "other" stories are not covered "as much." How do you determine which stories should be covered more? Less?
Do you have any data to support your unsupported hunch?
These are all reasonable questions to ask someone who is making conspiratorial-sounding claims about how "they" are promoting "stories that fit a narrative..."
Every once and a while you do this, and it raises concerns about your mental acuity. You are responding to my response to your question, as if I had asked the question, not you. Did you forget that you'd asked me that question and not notice that my answer/response was not formatted as a question?
As far as something "conspiratorial", I'm merely expressing my lived experience based on my observation of events. No conspiracy, just observation.
For example, even on local news up here, the Annunciation shooting dropped out of high news coverage within 24 hours of the identity and motivation of the shooter being disclosed. Likewise, once the waters around the motivation of the MN Legislator shooter and his close ties to Walz were revealed, the story mostly went away. I was under the impression that lived experience was a good thing and that it should be accepted as reality. I guess not.
Again, I do not and am not suggesting that there is a magical/perfect/right amount of coverage. What I am suggesting is that they be covered relatively equally. Further, when I wrote this post, all the coverage I'd seen was national. Obviously local coverage will differ from national coverage.
Lived experience, watching/reading multiple news sources. It's not rocket science.
Do I need "data" to support my personal observations and lived experience?
https://manhattan.institute/article/yes-the-media-bury-the-race-of-murderers-if-theyre-not-white
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/research-suggests-nationwide-racial-bias-media-reporting-gun-violence
https://manhattan.institute/article/yes-the-media-bury-the-race-of-murderers-if-theyre-not-white
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/research-suggests-nationwide-racial-bias-media-reporting-gun-violence
You may not like this data, you may disagree with this data, but you asked if there was data and there is.
No, it's not, Craig. It's what Dan does.
Post a Comment