Multiple people killed in Maryland newsroom shooting

[Birds Away]

If there is no market to feed they will go elsewhere.

That would require a fundamental shift somewhere along the line. With the anonymity of the internet making all the crazies on both sides feel immune to retribution I just see more coal on the fire everyday.

 

[jamil]

A guy who has been "at war with the newspaper for almost a decade," but didn't have a bodycount until now? Why did he wait so long?
It's not a huge leap of the imagination to think comments where certain people call the media the "enemy of the people," and inquiring when reporters will be shot, will eventually lead to violence.

...and I won't even go into the shooters tweets related to the president, and the newspaper in question.

It takes awhile for cold water to come to a boil. It takes a while for unresolved grievances to fester from, well, this pisses me off. To: Okay, I'm definitely going to kill these mother****ers. There's the whole mental transition from maybe somewhat reasonable to definitely bat **** crazy homicidal. People aren't always born bat **** crazy homicidal.

 

[jamil]

I see where this is going and possibly some points to be made but seriously, the guy was well over a bubble off plumb. He had been doing this for how long. If Trump put him over the edge he was very close to begin with. Very close.

That we are becoming so politically driven is on who/what group......I will wait.
Theme song of Jeopardy...

Trump didn't put him over the edge. Crazy needs no encouragement. Anything can be the trigger. The trigger isn't even the point. It's the crazy that's the point. Well. Unless it's Obama. Then it's definitely his fault.

 

[jamil]

You're saying he was using....a dog whistle?

He winked. That has to mean it's a dog whistle.

 

[PaulF]

No argument with any of that. What will bring about change? If anything we are becoming more polarized by the minute and big media is urging it on all the way.

I'd like to think the market would respond if people are willing to pay for high-quality transparent investigative journalism. I don't think that type of thing is cheap, though. When you factor in how many stories inevitably end up on the editing room floor, it's business that puts a lot out with very little guarantee of return. I'm not sure how many people are honestly interested enough to pay the price for influence-free journalism. We are used to being served our "information" for very low cost thanks to the influence of advertisers and marketers...maybe we have been getting what we pay for.

I don't think journalism is completely dead. People will always document the world around them and tell that story to others. "Professional" journalism has certainly taken a hit, especially to their overall credibility...and I think that's largely due to their own making.

If I could get access to open journalism executed to a high standard, I would be willing to pay for it. Maybe there are others that would, too. Maybe an entrepreneur or academic influencer will find a way to profit providing low-bias, factual reporting to these consumers.

Honestly, this seems like a good opportunity for traditional academia to salvage the missions of their communication and journalism departments, while offering leadership and a worthwhile public service. LOL. I know that's a pipe dream, ideological leftist extremists have nested in the liberal arts wing of modern university, and they aren't going anywhere on their own.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think he did so knowingly. At that point he was the junior Senator from Illinois and not in any way prepared for the shoes he found himself trying to walk in. In Illinois (read Chicago) politics you have to use Maxine Waters-type rhetoric to get noticed. I don't think he had yet realized that the rhetoric would have to change when on the national stage.

I do. He is a community organizer. That's what they do. He often used their vocabulary.

 

[jamil]

Ok, but if we go there, then the people that blame Trump/blame Waters (or other representatives of ugly rhetoric) are on point, too. If the MSM didn't have quotes to print, then the would be forced to stick to facts. Its easy to say the MSM is the tail wagging the dog, but I'm not sure that's always true.

From what I can tell, nowadays the reporting mirrors ACTUAL factionalization in America. People are clicking the clickbait. Not because they're board or Slack is down or the Kardashians' phones all died at the same time. It is a feedback loop of confirmation bias (most often). People are clicking BECAUSE they want to see their leaders insulting each other.

I'm more than happy to call the MSM out for being biased or incorrect or grammatically challenged. But, at a fundamental level, it looks like the reporting on the rhetoric is factual. These people are actually saying ugly/stupid/mean/partisan/divisive stuff.

I mostly agree. But the media is more than just reporting on rhetoric. They're telling the people watching the news that the rhetoric means what the people want it to mean. For example, Obama's buying up all the ammunition to make a defacto gun ban. That's just what the right wants to click on. Trump saying "they're sending their bad people" means Trump is racist against all Mexicans. That's just what the TDS nut-bags want to believe it means. Righteous indignation feels good. People keep pushing that narcotic "hyperbole" button instead of the real news button.

But the media also makes up facts, even beyond just spin. It's going to get worse. Because of the internet and the availability of diverse opinions and even independent reporting, the old media is pretty much done in terms of their revenue model. Straight up news doesn't pay anymore. Their only play now is to adopt the editorial practices of the National Enquirer. And they've jumped head first into that shallow pool.

 

[Leadeye]

I'm not so sure. There is a lot of money to be made by the media in keeping things stirred up.

Always follow the money

 

[Leadeye]

Wonder what sort of meds he was on? That usually crops up with stories on crazy people.

 

[indiucky]

Yes, just a period. I’ve seen it posted in a LOT of threads and have never been able to figure out any kind of pattern, no rhyme or reason. I thought about the subscription thing, but if that was it, why doesn’t everyone else do it?

. ! .

 

[jamil]

Truly, I'm wondering how much further we have to go.

I take solace in our cultural political history. We've endured politicians calling each other the literal spawn of Satan, and worse. With luck, the pendulum has swung back that direction and will start swinging back to relative civility soon.

I get it. Not every Democrat is the spawn of Satan. However, I think in the case of Hillary, it's as true as anything political can be true.

About the pendulum, I've been saying for awhile that I see some signs of that. People getting "red-pilled". I don't know if it's enough. I don't know if it'll take great enough hold on the masses. We'll see if we can hold onto what liberty we have. A lot of young people need to be de-programed before they take over leadership roles in society.

 

[T.Lex]

I mostly agree. But the media is more than just reporting on rhetoric. They're telling the people watching the news that the rhetoric means what the people want it to mean. For example, Obama's buying up all the ammunition to make a defacto gun ban. That's just what the right wants to click on. Trump saying "they're sending their bad people" means Trump is racist against all Mexicans. That's just what the TDS nut-bags want to believe it means. Righteous indignation feels good. People keep pushing that narcotic "hyperbole" button instead of the real news button.

But the media also makes up facts, even beyond just spin. It's going to get worse. Because of the internet and the availability of diverse opinions and even independent reporting, the old media is pretty much done in terms of their revenue model. Straight up news doesn't pay anymore. Their only play now is to adopt the editorial practices of the National Enquirer. And they've jumped head first into that shallow pool.

We are truly at the point of finding minutiae to argue about.

I'll posit that the media are actually followers of that trend, not leaders. In terms of reporting and politics, Twitter (and other social media) is a connected corridor of echo chambers. Individuals who, on the one hand, retweet and like and reply to stuff they like - often growing in intensity with each iteration, and on the other hand, seek out those who disagree and use vile, insulting language to make points back in their home chamber.

That's not the MSM. The MSM didn't create that environment. The collective did.

I'll readily concede that there is still room in the middle for factual reporting. Plenty of people do that when they post videos of people doing stuff, either actual authorities or people acting like they have authority. That could become very powerful, letting people decide for themselves if the authority is racist/incompetent/evil.

But even then, that factual reporting seems like it reinforces the pre-existing beliefs. Confirmation bias flowing from factual reporting.

 

[jamil]

No argument with any of that. What will bring about change? If anything we are becoming more polarized by the minute and big media is urging it on all the way.

At an individual level, people need to recognize their own tribal tendencies. I don't think people can really overcome the lure of tribalism. But maybe we can shift the tribe. If my tribe is "truth" as far as I can accurately perceive it, then I think that's a good thing. There'll still be tribes along the lines of perception, but they don't have to be violent.

 

[shootersix]

I'll throw this out for discussion: was there a snowball's chance in hell of there being ANYONE armed in that building? Maybe not a GFZ e.

i'll answer that for you, as a longtime employee of a newspaper, ill say LOL NO! not even a security guard had a weapon! (even IF they had a security guard!), we used to have a few security people, and all they did was dial 911!, i remember hearing about an "incident" where an employee had been downsized, they lived 45 miles away, and carpooled with another employee, 5 minuets after she got to work, the notified her that she was laid off, she had to call her husband to come get her, so he drove up to get her, and when he got there he was pretty "upset", and grabbed a shovel out of the pickup, she was outside trying to calm her hubby down, and the "security guard" was calling 911 and praying that they would show up soon (you can see the police department from the lobby of the newspaper!)

I've worked in the printshop/pressroom of a newspaper for over 30 years (I work in a printshop that prints inserts) and in that time, we've been owned by a person, a small newspaper corporation, a medium size corporation, and now the largest newspaper corporation in America (if not the world!)

i live in Indiana, and the corporation has a paper in the town i live in, but i work in Kentucky at a newspaper there, and when the "medium size corporation" bought us, they had a meeting and said that we weren't allowed to have weapons on company property, i pointed out that that was against Kentucky state law (we could have firearms secured in our vehicle on company property), they didn't know that!

but heres the rub on that!, until a few years ago, Indiana didn't have that law!, so i could put a gun in my car and park on the company lot in Kentucky, but if i had to go by the office in Indiana, i had to park on the street!

so to answer your question, in the newspaper industry, the employees are only armed with their "opinions" (and the pocket knife that i carry!)

 

[Trigger Time]

So, save me some boring reading, was this just another crazy triggeered lib with with homicidal intentions who just carried it out?

Reading the accounts of people hiding under the desks and feeling helpless while the shooter reloaded I couldn't help but scream out in my head "why didnt you rush the guy and at least try?"
Act like a wimp/sheep/coward, then you will die like a wimp/sheep/coward. It really needs to not be sugar coated. People need to fight and live.
Also carry a ****ing gun. I honestly dont give a **** what your local law says or not, carry it. We need good guys breaking unjust laws to stop the bad guys who break unjust laws to break just laws.

 

[T.Lex]

So, save me some boring reading, was this just another crazy triggeered lib with with homicidal intentions who just carried it out?

Almost certainly crazy and triggered. Arguably not a lib. Possibly a Trump supporter to some extent. Maybe Trump sympathizer would be more accurate.

 

[Expat]

At an individual level, people need to recognize their own tribal tendencies. I don't think people can really overcome the lure of tribalism. But maybe we can shift the tribe. If my tribe is "truth" as far as I can accurately perceive it, then I think that's a good thing. There'll still be tribes along the lines of perception, but they don't have to be violent.

I try to keep that sort of thing in mind. Just like the story about the gay flag flying over some of the VA clinics. If Obama had been President still, I would imagine we would have put some blame on him. But since Trump is in, nothing was said about POTUS, because we all knew he had nothing to do with it.

 

[jamil]

We are truly at the point of finding minutiae to argue about.

I'll posit that the media are actually followers of that trend, not leaders. In terms of reporting and politics, Twitter (and other social media) is a connected corridor of echo chambers. Individuals who, on the one hand, retweet and like and reply to stuff they like - often growing in intensity with each iteration, and on the other hand, seek out those who disagree and use vile, insulting language to make points back in their home chamber.

That's not the MSM. The MSM didn't create that environment. The collective did.

I'll readily concede that there is still room in the middle for factual reporting. Plenty of people do that when they post videos of people doing stuff, either actual authorities or people acting like they have authority. That could become very powerful, letting people decide for themselves if the authority is racist/incompetent/evil.

But even then, that factual reporting seems like it reinforces the pre-existing beliefs. Confirmation bias flowing from factual reporting.

I don't see it that we're arguing exactly. Maybe more like progressively honing in on an agreed reality. I'm not completely disagreeing that it's the collective that created the situation. It's more like all participants have their role. I think it's more like a spiraling stream of reactions to reactions, exacerbated by social media.

I think it was evolving this way anyway. Fake news didn't start with social media. Dan Rather faked the letter before social media became mainstream. I'm have no greater factual authority to say it's all MSM's fault, as you have to say it's all the collective's fault. I don't think either of us are saying that. It is a symbiotic relationship of media and consumers. Though, I do agree that the media are mostly just trying to survive as a business, and the only way to do that is like most businesses do, they react to their customers. But there's at least a little yellow journalism involved, that's ideologically driven, that's not motivated purely by clicks.

Because the internet naturally facilitates crowd-sourced news, the old news model of the 4th estate is done, the old paradigm of "news brokers" is over. It's especially apparent when you have MSM not reporting hard news based on real journalism, but basically reporting on tweets and collusion with sources to produce news rather than report it. They're desperate to preserve the idea of the 4th estate. Why else would journalists in the Wall Street Journal attack Pewdiepie with fake news? Because he has a much larger platform than the Wall Street Journal. He's a threat to their business. And they're not above lying to protect their market, not that Pewdiepie's domain competes with WSJ's. But, they're attacking the top dawg of the medium which does threaten them.

Anyway, we can look at it both ways, because it's obvious that both are at least a little true: as a reaction to what consumers want, and as a means to an end. It can be both at the same time. After all, Hillary and the DNC did not collude with the news outlets hosting the debates to give her advanced knowledge of questions, just to give consumers what they wanted. Ideologues IN THE MEDIA use their power of platform to help Hillary win an election.

 

[jamil]

Almost certainly crazy and triggered. Arguably not a lib. Possibly a Trump supporter to some extent. Maybe Trump sympathizer would be more accurate.

Have you seen his picture? Eh, he could look like a Trumper, if he tucked his hair in a man bun to hid it under his MAGA hat.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't see it that we're arguing exactly. Maybe more like progressively honing in on an agreed reality.

Indeed.

We're more in the observational process on this, you and I.