Gun Control

funhusker said:
The whole "walk up, not out" was built upon this thought process.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. 

I don't think that's a terrible mission, but trying to justify or defend Cruz's actions is stupid.

I think the "walk up, not out" mission can help prevent more teen suicides, and possibly recognize mentally troubled kids, but it won't stop all school shootings.

 
Already said it here but many of the people parroting the "don't bully kids and they won't shoot schools up" (because it can't possibly have anything to do with gun access) are the same ones that call people politically correct snowflakes who need to grow a pair. They're seem perfectly fine with minorities, gay people, and non-Christians being bullied.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
What a piece of crap...."in the spirit of the Holy Week".

Facing boycott, Laura Ingraham apologizes for taunting Parkland teen over college rejections
Click to expand...
I read a take on this last week that I found pretty interesting. I'll try to track down the article and share it below in this post.

For starters, the editorial lambasted Ingraham for her comments and Fox News for posturing that kind of behavior from its talent. It categorically condemned her decision.

But, the writer also said they didn't like the message Hogg sent, that if you happen to disagree with something "reported" in the media (I use that term loosely of course because, in this case, Ingraham was more of an opinionated talking head than anything else) you can try to silence that media outlet by shaming its advertisers into pulling dollars. In this case, few are supporting Ingraham's message of course, but that doesn't mean the first thing people should do when they don't like something they see is go after a media outlet's funding.

Anyways, I found some common understanding with that editorial. I don't feel bad for Ingraham that Hogg went after her bottom line because what she said was stupid, but, what Hogg did also doesn't sit super well with me despite my ardent dislike for Fox News.

 
Enhance said:
I read a take on this last week that I found pretty interesting. I'll try to track down the article and share it below in this post.

For starters, the editorial lambasted Ingraham for her comments and Fox News for posturing that kind of behavior from its talent. It categorically condemned her decision.

But, the writer also said they didn't like the message Hogg sent, that if you happen to disagree with something "reported" in the media (I use that term loosely of course because, in this case, Ingraham was more of an opinionated talking head than anything else) you can try to silence that media outlet by shaming its advertisers into pulling dollars. In this case, few are supporting Ingraham's message of course, but that doesn't mean the first thing people should do when they don't like something they see is go after a media outlet's funding.

Anyways, I found some common understanding with that editorial. I don't feel bad for Ingraham that Hogg went after her bottom line because what she said was stupid, but, what Hogg did also doesn't sit super well with me despite my ardent dislike for Fox News.
Click to expand...


I posted this in another thread and maybe you didn't see it.  It mentions basically what you are talking about.


But...here's what bothers me about your comments, and the editorial you read, and this tweet.

The media is not supposed to have "sides".  

Laura Ingram was not being the NEWS media.  She was being an opinion mouth piece.  What I believe the tweet I posted here and other comments show is the blurred lines between actual news reporting and yelling opinions across the airways.

That is a major problem in America right now.  People don't distinguish between the two.

I would have a problem if an actual news cast came on TV and reported something factual that someone didn't like and there were people who organized a boycott of the advertisers.

I do NOT have a problem with an opinion talking head blabbing something offensive and someone didn't like it and organized a boycott of the advertisers.

Hopefully people see the difference.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I posted this in another thread and maybe you didn't see it.  It mentions basically what you are talking about.


But...here's what bothers me about your comments, and the editorial you read, and this tweet.

The media is not supposed to have "sides".  

Laura Ingram was not being the NEWS media.  She was being an opinion mouth piece.  What I believe the tweet I posted here and other comments show is the blurred lines between actual news reporting and yelling opinions across the airways.

That is a major problem in America right now.  People don't distinguish between the two.

I would have a problem if an actual news cast came on TV and reported something factual that someone didn't like and there were people who organized a boycott of the advertisers.

I do NOT have a problem with an opinion talking head blabbing something offensive and someone didn't like it and organized a boycott of the advertisers.

Hopefully people see the difference.
Click to expand...
I don't really disagree with any of that (just to be clear, I did state "...Ingraham was more of an opinionated talking head than anything else" because I too believe it's important to distinguish between 'journalism' and the other BS).

My issue is more with precedent and escalation as you pointed out. Could a factual piece of journalism be a target next?

That said, the last time someone went after a Fox News' anchor's advertisers, it involved sexual harassment. This time it involves someone's ill-advised comments about grades. That's a fairly huge discrepancy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
My issue is more with precedent and escalation as you pointed out. Could a factual piece of journalism be a target next?
Click to expand...
President Trump vs. The Media.

I agree that this should be a  concern.  However, so far, the public and advertisers have, for the most part, been able to ascertain the difference between the President's attack on CNN's factual reporting and asking people to boycott it (which they haven't done in mass) and Hogg calling out Ingram and her advertisers.

It's something we should alway be cognizant of.  But, so far, it hasn't been an issue that I can see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/us/trauma-surgeon-youtube-hq-shooting/index.html

This surgeon has a great point.  If the media were to go crazy, like breaking into regular programming, with each act of gun violence, people would get sick of it in a hurry.  There was no reason for the media to cover the YouTube shooting yesterday that claimed one life (by suicide) if they weren't willing to hold a press conference for other shootings that take place every single day that claim just as many lives if not more.

Many people think gun violence is out of control because of the way media covers it 24/7, they have no idea......

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top