Comments on: Where is the outrage?

By: ER

ER — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 21:41:22 +0000

Long standing media culture? Maybe most media people are just smarter, and nicer.

After all, that’s no more a stretch than to say they are all part of some leftist conspiracy. Ouch, there’s the “C” word again.

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:49:29 +0000

and this case I posted was so awful awful awful, that I am outraged…truly…that this was done….and speaking from where I sit as a woman, and the heinous atrocities that befell her, is where I am most upset. I am realizing this as I type it. I am mad as hell…EVIL knows no color or religion or political standing. And I am by FAR more outraged by this than I am the Martin/Zimmerman case.

..and certain members of this board call me what you will.

By: TB

TB — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:08:05 +0000

Remember when I pointed out the Roderick Scott case?

All else being equal, if a story serves the liberal agenda, or at least does no damage to it, it makes news. Otherwise, no.

The Martin case made news because there was a Democratic narrative being served by it. Don’t overlook the fact that some major players in the media made specific and deliberate efforts to falsify the facts to serve that narrative. That kind of thing is not about sales.

This isn’t a conspiracy. This is a long-standing media culture. Chris Matthews is just the most obvious case.

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:55:47 +0000

I am so tired of this.

However on a bright side for me, I have found a reasonable balance. I have a page on Facebook that I get to decide what gets posted. I love that. It actually helps me. Probably more than my readers.

By: ER

ER — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 19:36:55 +0000

The news is a business. They do not sell information, they sell advertising, and they sell the most advertising when they have a lot of readers or viewers. Have you noticed that when Prince George was born in the UK suddenly everybody stopped taking about Trayvon anbd Zimmerman (except, of course, people who had a personal stake in that issue). One horrible case gets the page 12 treatment, an identical one a week later in another town makes the headlines.

Follow the news every day and you will see every major story is dragged on and on until something more sensational replaces it. If you have a busy week each story only runs a day or two, if things are slow, they’ll drag a headliner out for weeks.

The news is a business, and editors pick their stories on how they think its going to sell papers, or eyeballs. So what really determines what news is considered important is…the free market. If you need to blame somebody, there’s your villain.

That is not a criticism, the last thing we want is a press run by the government. But just because journalsim is free doesn’t mean it can’t be ugly. And this is not new, look into the journalism of the historical past. Once people started selling ads, the news was compromised for financial gain. Fortunately, people who buy advertising don’t really care what you’re reading as long as their ad is nearby. The only time they interfere is when its their product or their company that is getting the bad press. Then they can be ruthless.

As they used to say on Yankee Station…”There it is”.

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 18:58:29 +0000

Now….can we get to the real reason I posted this?

WHY do some crimes which are (imho) ten billion times more heinous and calculated not get the coverage that the Martin/Zimmerman case got? Who determines the importance?

I placed this on Flame because I know the answers could go from zero to crazy in .032 seconds.

…and ER…why shame on me? Because I want to know? I am not , contrary to current “beliefs” on this board, out to malign the liberals. Life is anything but fair. For every finger pointed one way…there are three pointing back. Democrats and Republicans.

But who gets to decide what and which is worse?