tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Since when is the lack of 'hyped coverage' a bad thing? And here all the time I thought your kind hated 'hype' (Not). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Numerous media people as cited above have noticed the lack of hyped coverage on cable and in the more reliable press so quit talking out of your ass for once. Â Well I didn't get called a Dead Ender, only an End Talker. Â more non sequitur from you, but still no facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 These people are media observers, which media do you watch? none. So stop pretending. Â You're not one for taking real data, are you? Â Cool. You're in good company. Most of America doesn't require it, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Numerous media people as cited above have noticed the lack of hyped coverage on cable and in the more reliable press so quit talking out of your ass for once. Â Well I didn't get called a Dead Ender, only an End Talker. Â more non sequitur from you, but still no facts. Â Yes, still no facts, my thesis exactly. What facts would you like me to make up today? What would make you feel more...validated? Edited January 25, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 did you read that nothing appeared on drudge or the NYT for almost 24hrs? isn't that a fact, retard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 did you read that nothing appeared on drudge or the the NYT for almost 24hrs? isn't that a fact, retard! Â OMFG that is EARTH SHATTERING. Â WHY WEREN'T PLANES SCRAMBLED????!!!! Â 24 HOURS!!!!! Â WHAT DOES IT MEAN????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 is that a fact or not? as I said quit talking out of your ass for once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 IT'S SOOO INTENSE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 fucking troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) FACT: Â RIGHT WING GOONS THREATENED THE NYT AND MATT DRUDGE INTO SHUTTING UP FOR 24 WHOLE HOURS. HOLY SHIT WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY GOING???? Edited January 25, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 did you read that nothing appeared on drudge or the NYT for almost 24hrs? isn't that a fact, retard! Â so your position is that because there was little media coverage of a failed bombing attempt in spokane, this is indicative of a victory by the right-wing media machine? Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 FACT:Â RIGHT WING GOONS THREATENED THE NYT AND MATT DRUDGE INTO SHUTTING UP FOR 24 WHOLE HOURS. HOLY SHIT WHERE IS THIS COUNTRY GOING???? Â It COULD have happened!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 so your position is that because there was little media coverage of a failed bombing attempt in spokane, this is indicative of a victory by the right-wing media machine? Â when compared to their treatment of other events of a similar nature, its evidence of propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The incendiary atmosphere in the immediate aftermath of Tuscon probably goes a long way toward explaining why this event didn't get a lot of coverage. But more broadly (at the risk of stating the obvious), there's a certain amount of self-censorship that's gone on with regards to the domestic terrorism issue. Why? Here's a theory. While there is a segment of the media that breaks down along clear partisan lines (Fox vs. MSNBC, for example), many smaller outlets still compete for readers and viewers across a broader spectrum. As with any business in the hyper-politicized atmosphere, it pays to water down content to appeal to the widest possible audience. Given that audience is extremely polarized currently, there is a danger that investigative reporting or keeping domestic terrorism stories in the fore would lead to charges of bias and alienate customers, no matter how clinical and balanced those stories were. There are plenty of examples of such charges in every comments section of thoroughly innocuous Associated Press articles on the topic. Despite the fact that there's a clear, present, and rising danger from rightwing violence, journalism operating as a business in an environment where a significant part of the population is somewhat sympathetic to the ideas underpinning domestic terrorism, if not the actions themselves, reporting on those stories (and the broader movement) would represent a potential business liability. In a climate where "old" journalism is already in deep shit, it doesn't pay to play in minefields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmo Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 when compared to their treatment of other events of a similar nature, its evidence of propaganda. Â which events of a similar nature? Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Most bloggers write about themselves and not much else. "I think this MAY have happened or COULD HAVE happened." Their overly complicated conjecture, often fantastical, given the general disorganization and incompetence of the human condition, is about how smart they are in ferreting out possible conspiracies that they...er...have absolutely no evidence of cuz they haven't gotten out of their PJs in weeks. Â Their followers, like Faux Nooz idjits, lap it up because it makes them feel right about things as well, and titillates their required sense of outrage. Â Me? I don't need made up shit to fire me up. There's enough real, meticulously well documented shit out there to keep busy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The incendiary atmosphere in the immediate aftermath of Tuscon probably goes a long way toward explaining why this event didn't get a lot of coverage. But more broadly (at the risk of stating the obvious), there's a certain amount of self-censorship that's gone on with regards to the domestic terrorism issue. Why? Here's a theory. While there is a segment of the media that breaks down along clear partisan lines (Fox vs. MSNBC, for example), many smaller outlets still compete for readers and viewers across a broader spectrum. As with any business in the hyper-politicized atmosphere, it pays to water down content to appeal to the widest possible audience. Given that audience is extremely polarized currently, there is a danger that investigative reporting or keeping domestic terrorism stories in the fore would lead to charges of bias and alienate customers, no matter how clinical and balanced those stories were. There are plenty of examples of such charges in every comments section of thoroughly innocuous Associated Press articles on the topic. Despite the fact that there's a clear, present, and rising danger from rightwing violence, journalism operating as a business in an environment where a significant part of the population is somewhat sympathetic to the ideas underpinning domestic terrorism, if not the actions themselves, reporting on those stories (and the broader movement) would represent a potential business liability. In a climate where "old" journalism is already in deep shit, it doesn't pay to play in minefields. Â Or, it just might be that one event was a major historical one and one was not. Â Just maybe.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) which events of a similar nature? Â events like bombs planted in the middle of the public, which happened to be civil right marchers on MLK day. Edited January 25, 2011 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 There have been a number of "historical events" for which the media hasn't done its job in connecting the dots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Funny, but I seem to recall j_b just informing us that the major media outlets DID run the Spokane story. Â The cover up must have been covered up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) There have been a number of "historical events" for which the media hasn't done its job in connecting the dots. Â But then, they don't do that anymore do they? Â [video:youtube] Â [video:youtube] Edited January 25, 2011 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Nobody is making up that the corporate media mostly ignored the attempting bombing of an MLK march, while they usually hype up anything that could be construed as terrorism despite Tvash's claims to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Wow. My googling revealed tens of stories about the bombing - including the WA Post, NYT, WSJ...pretty much all of the biggies, as well as all the local boys, too. Â I continue to be ever vigilant for a cover up, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Nobody is making up that the corporate media mostly ignored the attempting bombing of an MLK march, while they usually hype up anything that could be construed as terrorism despite Tvash's claims to the contrary. Â I've made no claims other than your originally posted blogurd was crap. Attributing strawmen opinions to your critics...well, that's Faux's bread and butter, isn't it? Â You're not fighting the problem, you're part of it, DOOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 as everybody knows, in the world of propaganda, there is a big difference between a news black out, putting the news for one day on page 10 or putting it on the first page 24x7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.