Is our media helping the terrorists win?

[Belsnickel]

So today's sermon at church the pastor talked about two sides to the story. Lutheranism looks at the two parts to scripture: Law and Gospel. But she discussed the two (or more) sides to any story, and today she specifically brought up the media coverage of the Paris attacks. You may remember that I mentioned she was in Paris with her husband during the attacks. She talked about coming home to the media coverage of the events and everything in the media was fear driven. All the focus was on the attackers, on the devastation, on the lives lost, on the hunt for more perpetrators.

The story untold, she said, was the morning after the attacks. As they left their hotel that day the bakeries and cafes were open and bustling, the morning joggers were out for their runs cracking jokes with each other. There was mourning, as seen by parents giving flowers to their children to lay at the immediately present memorials to those slain. But it was a story of love and compassion. It was a story of life moving on after a tragedy and not letting the terrorists win. But this was not the story they saw when they got back to the U.S.

So if the goal of terrorism is to cause terror in the populous, to force change through fear, it seems to me that our media is focusing on the story that furthers their cause. It seems to me that what our media chooses to focus on is aiding the terrorists. Do you agree with this? If so, why do you think it is the case. It goes far beyond the old adage of "if it bleeds it reads" to me. Why do we continue to let it happen? The people buying ad time, the people absorbing the information and buying the subscriptions, it's all supporting this sort of thing. Can we do anything to put a stop to it?

[Rotobeast]

(11-29-2015, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So today's sermon at church the pastor talked about two sides to the story. Lutheranism looks at the two parts to scripture: Law and Gospel. But she discussed the two (or more) sides to any story, and today she specifically brought up the media coverage of the Paris attacks. You may remember that I mentioned she was in Paris with her husband during the attacks. She talked about coming home to the media coverage of the events and everything in the media was fear driven. All the focus was on the attackers, on the devastation, on the lives lost, on the hunt for more perpetrators.

The story untold, she said, was the morning after the attacks. As they left their hotel that day the bakeries and cafes were open and bustling, the morning joggers were out for their runs cracking jokes with each other. There was mourning, as seen by parents giving flowers to their children to lay at the immediately present memorials to those slain. But it was a story of love and compassion. It was a story of life moving on after a tragedy and not letting the terrorists win. But this was not the story they saw when they got back to the U.S.

So if the goal of terrorism is to cause terror in the populous, to force change through fear, it seems to me that our media is focusing on the story that furthers their cause. It seems to me that what our media chooses to focus on is aiding the terrorists. Do you agree with this? If so, why do you think it is the case. It goes far beyond the old adage of "if it bleeds it reads" to me. Why do we continue to let it happen? The people buying ad time, the people absorbing the information and buying the subscriptions, it's all supporting this sort of thing. Can we do anything to put a stop to it?

I severely doubt it.
I don't think there is any way we can reverse the sensationalism train.
Barring government control of the media (which we don't want, yet some claim it has already happened), I don't see how you stop the networks from giving terrorists face-time.
It is quite the conundrum.
 

[Benton]

those stories are out there. But they aren't tweeted as much, shared on facebook, linked to aggregate sites. The problem isn't that media doesn't tell those stories, its that some people are more interested in the negative ones.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2015, 04:30 PM)Benton Wrote: those stories are out there. But they aren't tweeted as much, shared on facebook, linked to aggregate sites. The problem isn't that media doesn't tell those stories, its that some people are more interested in the negative ones.

I think it may be a chicken or the egg scenario. These stories may exist, but they aren't the top stories on the sites. That being said, the reason they aren't the top stories is because they aren't what the people are as interested in. It's a vicious cycle that one side has to break. I just wish that more people would make the realization, but it's too easy to be lazy and not dig any into the story.

[Benton]

(11-29-2015, 04:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it may be a chicken or the egg scenario. These stories may exist, but they aren't the top stories on the sites. That being said, the reason they aren't the top stories is because they aren't what the people are as interested in. It's a vicious cycle that one side has to break. I just wish that more people would make the realization, but it's too easy to be lazy and not dig any into the story.

Then make it that way. Share the good stories. Tweet them, like them, click on their headlines. If more people do that, they will go to the top.

Look at stories about cats playing piano or some little kid that can name all the Presidents' birthdays. That stuff makes national news because enough people watch the YouTube video or share it on social media. As much as I don't consider that stuff news, it is positive in so much as it's not negative. 

[StLucieBengal]

The blaze reports positive stories about all sorts of stuff. They claim these stories are their most shared on social media .

If the media didn't always throw in a fear component then no one would go along with the government interfering in our lives for our "safety"

Jerry Springer culture .

[*bfine32*]

We focus on what effects our interests.

Sudan has been in a civil war(s) pretty much since 1955, millions have died, millions have been displaced, and nobody gives a damn.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The thing though is,

Do you report about the guy running down the street with a gun murdering people or do you report about the wife moving on after the guy running down the street with a gun murders the husband and still isn't caught yet?

I do believe we give way too much face time to terrorists but they are still out there plotting their next attack.

There needs to be a balance, what that balance is, I don't know.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm not sure what she wants the media to do. 130 people being murdered is real and serious news. This isn't "If it bleeds it leads" this is what in the hell is happening in the world today.

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2015, 12:53 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not sure what she wants the media to do. 130 people being murdered is real and serious news. This isn't "If it bleeds it leads" this is what in the hell is happening in the world today.

I think the issue is that in the aftermath, the attention is entirely focused on the devastation. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but when you aren't seeing the life goes on afterwards it provides a much more fear laden image. It shows a victory for the terrorists, that they accomplished their goal in creating that fear. I can't tell you how many times I heard in the media that Paris had essentially shut down over the weekend, but that was not the case in reality.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-29-2015, 06:43 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The blaze reports positive stories about all sorts of stuff.    They claim these stories are their most shared on social media .  

If the media didn't always throw in a fear component then no one would go along with the government interfering in our lives for our "safety"

Jerry Springer culture .

Writes the character who uses fear mongering media stories urging the government to "close our borders" for our safety.

[fredtoast]

(11-29-2015, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So today's sermon at church the pastor talked about two sides to the story. Lutheranism looks at the two parts to scripture: Law and Gospel. But she discussed the two (or more) sides to any story, and today she specifically brought up the media coverage of the Paris attacks. You may remember that I mentioned she was in Paris with her husband during the attacks. She talked about coming home to the media coverage of the events and everything in the media was fear driven. All the focus was on the attackers, on the devastation, on the lives lost, on the hunt for more perpetrators.

The story untold, she said, was the morning after the attacks. As they left their hotel that day the bakeries and cafes were open and bustling, the morning joggers were out for their runs cracking jokes with each other. There was mourning, as seen by parents giving flowers to their children to lay at the immediately present memorials to those slain. But it was a story of love and compassion. It was a story of life moving on after a tragedy and not letting the terrorists win. But this was not the story they saw when they got back to the U.S.

So if the goal of terrorism is to cause terror in the populous, to force change through fear, it seems to me that our media is focusing on the story that furthers their cause. It seems to me that what our media chooses to focus on is aiding the terrorists. Do you agree with this? If so, why do you think it is the case. It goes far beyond the old adage of "if it bleeds it reads" to me. Why do we continue to let it happen? The people buying ad time, the people absorbing the information and buying the subscriptions, it's all supporting this sort of thing. Can we do anything to put a stop to it?

So I guess it was just a big coincidence that she was in Paris at the time of the attack, and now she is suddenly some expert on the goals of terrorists.

Sounds a little fishy to me.  Have you reported this to the authorities?

[Belsnickel]

(11-30-2015, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So I guess it was just a big coincidence that she was in Paris at the time of the attack, and now she is suddenly some expert on the goals of terrorists.

Sounds a little fishy to me.  Have you reported this to the authorities?

Well, I'm the one talking about the goals of the terrorists. She didn't get into that, her part was just about the two sides of the story.

Maybe I should report myself.

[*bfine32*]

(11-30-2015, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, I'm the one talking about the goals of the terrorists. She didn't get into that, her part was just about the two sides of the story.

Maybe I should report myself.

I've already reported your posts to the mods.

[fredtoast]

What if I have never done any terror, and I don't even know how to get in touch with any real terrorists, but I identify as a terrorists?

Do I have to report myself?

[Rotobeast]

(12-01-2015, 03:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What if I have never done any terror, and I don't even know how to get in touch with any real terrorists, but I identify as a terrorists?

Do I have to report myself?

Taken care of....
Enjoy the watch list.

[Vas Deferens]

(12-01-2015, 03:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What if I have never done any terror, and I don't even know how to get in touch with any real terrorists, but I identify as a terrorists?

Do I have to report myself?

You just like it really, really, really rough.  Nothing wrong with that.

[fredtoast]

(12-01-2015, 03:51 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Taken care of....
Enjoy the watch list.

My internet provider just called.  They have to come out and fix some problem with the cable connection coming into my house.  I had not really noticed any trouble, but they insured me that this would make my signal clearer.

[Rotobeast]

(12-01-2015, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My internet provider just called.  They have to come out and fix some problem with the cable connection coming into my house.  I had not really noticed any trouble, but they insured me that this would make my signal clearer.

ADT should be there tomorrow.

[Bengalzona]

(11-29-2015, 03:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So today's sermon at church the pastor talked about two sides to the story. Lutheranism looks at the two parts to scripture: Law and Gospel. But she discussed the two (or more) sides to any story, and today she specifically brought up the media coverage of the Paris attacks. You may remember that I mentioned she was in Paris with her husband during the attacks. She talked about coming home to the media coverage of the events and everything in the media was fear driven. All the focus was on the attackers, on the devastation, on the lives lost, on the hunt for more perpetrators.

The story untold, she said, was the morning after the attacks. As they left their hotel that day the bakeries and cafes were open and bustling, the morning joggers were out for their runs cracking jokes with each other. There was mourning, as seen by parents giving flowers to their children to lay at the immediately present memorials to those slain. But it was a story of love and compassion. It was a story of life moving on after a tragedy and not letting the terrorists win. But this was not the story they saw when they got back to the U.S.

So if the goal of terrorism is to cause terror in the populous, to force change through fear, it seems to me that our media is focusing on the story that furthers their cause. It seems to me that what our media chooses to focus on is aiding the terrorists. Do you agree with this? If so, why do you think it is the case. It goes far beyond the old adage of "if it bleeds it reads" to me. Why do we continue to let it happen? The people buying ad time, the people absorbing the information and buying the subscriptions, it's all supporting this sort of thing. Can we do anything to put a stop to it?

I agree.

The media went nuts over the Paris attacks. But this was not the first time there have been bombings in Paris:
- There were a series of 5 bombings in 1986.
- In 1995, the Paris Metro, the Arc De Triumph and a Jewish school in Paris were bombed.
- In 1961, a bomb killed 28 on a Paris train.
- In 1972, A Muslim bookstore in paris was bombed by a neo-Nazi group.
- In 1984, a Turkish National Intelligence operation exploded 3 bombs at the Armenian Memorial Building in Alfortville, a suburb of Paris.
- This was in retaliation for the Armenian bombing of a Turkish Airlines check-in counter in 1983.

And how many of these had we heard about?

Terrorists and bombs are nothing new in Europe and France, and in Paris in particular. And they learned long ago that life must go on despite the disruption. We are the ones who are fixated upon these events. Modern media is driven by the fixation of our own population. We have people here who want to be scared.