Reply With Quote
No one's learning about it for the first time; it is simply far more apparent in situations like this.
I think it's natural for them (the students, families) to respond angrily. And in hindsight he did bungle it a bit. But "blood on his hands" is something said out of outrage, and I don't think it's right. There is NO WAY they could have foreseen this. And it's only something to keep in mind.
There's an inconsistency ,because they did take the proper measures when that gunman was on the loose in August. And this time, they bungled it because they had assumed it was an isolated domestic incident. What happened happened. And the blame game doesn't ever help matters. I'm sure the president is anguishing enough over his delayed response time.
No one's learning about it for the first time; it is simply far more apparent in situations like this.
I'm stupid to think it woudln't make a difference eh? Great. You're brilliant. With all the evidence you supplied to make your point I don't see why I would think differently. Nice job.
I'd like to respond here, ASF.
The first half of your statement: We need to ask those questions, plain and simple. You ask those questions (knowing damn well that you probably won't get anything but a "no comment" or "I don't know" or "Can't release that at this time" on the chance that you do get an answer of relevance. The rule is never assume the obvious and never assume that the reader/viewer knows the obvious. The rule is "If it's not generally accepted as fact, such as 'The sky is blue,' then get confirmation from an outside source." We as journalists aren't the sources.
As far as activism goes, I saw less of that in the early coverage than I'm used to, so I was a little better about it, but it still needs to go (at least from my rookie/fresh-off-the-truck, this-is-the-way-we-do-it way of thinking about journalism). Sadly, that's been one of the problems of 24-hour news...they need to fill.
Again, let's say she doesn't ask that question and it's never brought up by those leading the press conference. She writes that they were chained from the inside and (again, example to prove a point) the gunman actually chained from the outside and went into the building another way.And the dumb broad who actually had the audacity to ask "Were the doors chained from the inside or the outside" should be fired for asking the stupidest question in the history of journalism.
Picture comes out (or witnesses state later) that there were chains on the outside.
Who hasn't done their job at that point?
The rule is: If you didn't observe it with your own eyes, find somebody who will go on-the-record about what the facts were. Our job is not to assume what went on, but to ask questions about what we didn't see and disseminate that information for our readers by helping them visualize the story.
When the name of the shooter came out I looked him up on myspace and found one in Virginia with a picture. He hasn't been on since 2005... anyhow... if you looked at his picture and the comments on the picture people were already leaving comments to this guy. Rot in , coward and other offensive things. Not sure if that was the guy but everything seemed to match what was heard on the news. This was about an hour ago and now that myspace no longer exists.
Good points JB, but it still frustrated me.
I got the feeling that the reporters all thought that life was like an episode of CSI and the case should be closed within an hour.
And the chaining question just sounded silly to me.
Listen up Amy the real stupid part is that it was a statement not even made by myself which I didn't even agree with or argue for. I simply stated the painfully obvious that yes if you ban something it helps remove some of the risk, I also said it wasn't the answer just like you did. Its not my intention to support it you blind ing moron. Can you not ing read. Are you really so ing hard headed to not even read what I'm saying. I'M NOT IN SUPPORT FOR BANNING GUNS, ITS NOT THE ANSWER TO THE REAL PROBLEMS OUR SOCIETY FACES.
You just are incapable of getting past a simple point that has merit although its a rediculous idea to ban guns it still doesn't change the fact that some gun related crimes would be avoided by it.
You do what you always do and you turn a simple statement into an arguement where there shouldn't be one.
While I'm not going to say you're wrong (because you're not), what seems to have happened here is that the values of news judgment have been affected by everyday life.
You know how I argue so I'm not going to preface it again.
How often are there shootings at universities? How often in Compton (or , for argument's sake) the inner-city of San Antonio?
The term used in describing this (and for the record, I hate the term and wish instructors would break out their thesauruses before teaching) is novelty. Another value in play here is interest (of the public).
(This is where the question of who dictates what news is, the reader or the media, comes into play, by the way).
Is the public more interested in a shooting at a university versus the inner-city? How often does each happen? Also, to top that off, 33 deaths...1 death.
I'm not defending the lack of stories in everyday life because it's quite obvious that some stories can enact radical changes in thinking from public officials and the general public, but this is what it has become.
Here's the coward:
Understandable.
I pulled out my copy of "Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists" from The Freedom Forum because I remembered some of the studies they cited.
I'm going to type this paragraph directly from the first chapter "Newspapers are unfair when: They get the facts wrong"
(The book I cited can be downloaded here) http://www.freedomforum.org/template... entID=12828Although many journalists may think that spelling and grammar errors, wrong names, wrong les, wrong addresses, wrong dates and other similar mistakes have relatively little to do with the press's credibility, the public sees it otherwise. In all of out roundtables, the frequency of errors was cited as a major reason why the public is increasingly skeptical of what it reads.
In the 1999 ASNE Credibility Study, a national random sample of readers had an identical result: Factual errors in news stories corrode the credibility of newspapers publishing the mistakes.
In a 1994 survey of Chicago-area readers by Northwestern University researchers David Nelson and Paul Wang, accuracy was found to be among characteristics that most bothered readers about newspapers. In a Louis Harris & Associates survey commissioned in 1996 for the Center of Media and Public Affairs, only a bare majority of those surveyed agreed that the media "usually get the facts straight." And in a 1998 Media Studies Center national poll, 86% of respondents said they believed that stories "often" or "sometimes" contained factual errors.
It goes on to say that a large majority of those surveyed said they'd rather an outlet hold the story and double-check facts than to get it out there first and correct later.
Ask the questions you don't know the answers to, then ask it again.
not sure if anyone saw this...
http://www.godhatesamerica.com/
Keep the evidence coming.
There has been a bomb threat at my old shool today, St. Edwards in Austin
Joe, I said sensationalist society not sensationalist media. The media simply provides what the public wants.
I understand people are angry and I if it gives them release, who am I to object to them posting notes to a dead man.
It goes to show how understandably crazy this tragedy has already made people
I just hope all the people victimized have supportive family and friends because they are obviously greatly suffering.
I also hope the best for the shooter's family. They are the most likely to be forgotten at a time like this and yet are no doubt deeply grieving as well.
Their son, brother, nephew etc. hurt everyone, including them.
I can't help but see the irony of people posting pure vile and hatred wondering how things like this can happen.
Oh, and I've never seen someone seem so threatend by me like Bishop is. Its cute how far under his skin I can get even when I hardly post now. I just need to come in and say something he doesn't like and BAM. He's like the forum puffer fish.
what evidence you ing dumbass I agree with you. My ing god you are so ing stupid. No wonder people go on murderous sprees with assholes like you around. I can't believe how someone as ing stupid as you has found a way to function in society. It won't be long before you completely and totally fail at life.
Its more like being annoyed at how much I can't stand the way you go about things. Its like talking to a wall. You're never wrong and its sickening. Your kids will hate you. You fail time and time again to just look and decipher without turning it into some kind of pointless dribble.
Even funnier that I must have gotten under your skin so much that you needed to find out who I was.
Evidence for what? Well what is it that you have been saying? That banning guns would make a difference.
What else would I be asking for evidence for? And I'm the stupid one? I'm the one that can't read? Ok.
Needed to find out? You think I asked someone?
Who else calls me Amy?
Dude, I know its you evertime because your posting style is the exact same. You and your new screen name every 2 days give yourself away the moment you start with your monkey jokes and by calling me Amy.
Right, I can see where I'm the stupid one again.
Because I look like a monkey and Amy was the name of the gorilla in Congo.
Mydeathspace is crashed
Holy ing . I said that yes technically on paper it would make a difference but its not the answer. I don't think its what we should do JUST LIKE YOU DON'T THINK ITS WHAT WE SHOULD DO. You think I'm saying we should ban guns. Thats not what I'm saying... ing christ.
"anymore so than banning planes would help cut down on hijacking"....because there are no ing planes, even though on paper it would. On paper its adds up but in real life its likely to cause more problems than help. What part of that do you not ing understand.
I think banning guns a pointless idea THAT FOR ONE I DID NOT MAKE SOMEONE ELSE DID. I simply stated that yes technically it would cut down on gun related crimes since guns would be banned and there would be less firearms available but I also said that its not a good or feasible idea. Its not addressing the real problems.
To think that banning guns wouldn't cut down on some crime is re ed. To think that banning guns would solve our problems is equally re ed. You are ing arguing with me over something I'm half agreeing with you on. What a ing bag you are. Pull your god damn head out of your ass and look around.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
