It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media have NO RIGHT to black out the name of the scum who murder

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NowWhat
I think we should have a name for the majority of the killers.
Let's call them all Emmanuel Goldstein.


That would make them Cereal Killers.

HACK THE PLANET




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Has many have pointed out, it's to stop the glorifying of these individuals, we are desensitized at it is, i support this.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Copycat. Yep. This should be the way these shooters should be branded. Copycat. They have no originality about them. All they can do is copy the copiers before them. Sad ain't it?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
If people want to shield themselves from the details/facts associated with he killer or his reasons for doing what he did, they can stop reading articles about him and watching news reports. Change the channel or click to a different website.
Let's not tell the media to stop doing their job.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Removing the name removes what the killer wanted, recognition.


Wait...I thought the motive behind all these mass gun shootings is 'mental illness' and that's how we are going to stop them? Background checks and no gun sales to those with mental illness collecting disability checks, etc...

That type of thing.

Now they are motivated by fame?

Personally, I think the names of these gunmen should always be released in the public's interest for the sake of government transparency.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Sparky63

Their job -- by this shooter's own admission -- is to motivate other crazies to emulate this particular behavior to achieve a measure of notoriety for themselves?

Nonsense.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
If a long time ago we stopped glorifying killers, there would be less of them today and less innocent victims.

There are millions of wonderful people doing wonderful things that deserve attention...stop giving killers attention!!



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

Actually, the media have the right to report or not report on anything they wish. Personally, I think they should come out with it, but they're completely free to report it or not report it. I don't know much about the process of documentation, but I'm assuming it will be a matter of public record, easily attainable anyhow, once charges are filed.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Sometimes I wonder about the topics that arise here....

And then I remember where I am.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I'm okay with releasing the name of the killer, but I'm NOT okay with all the 24/7 cable news coverage for days and days, and all the online coverage/discussion for weeks. Back in the "old" days, when we didn't have 24/7 cable news, and we didn't have the internet, these types of events just weren't global news. I think that's why they were much less frequent then - not as much fame and glory and notoriety to be had for a single shooting event. You might get a blurb on the local news and a couple of newspaper/magazine articles, and that's it.

Of course, the killer knows they are going to be dead by the time all the hullabaloo about them starts, but just knowing that it will happen spurs them on.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The media should report news and information. They should not glorify it -- but I agree they do with their endless coverage of some events.

And the President glorifies it by letting it shape our laws and infringe on our rights.

Ultimately, the public does some glorifying, too, whether they refer to a name or just call him the 'Oregon College Killer.'




edit on 2-10-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

The point is these decisions are being made by other people and not the public. Do you think it is right that those in power have the right to decide what information should and shouldn't be given to us. I don't care what the reason is for....it's the fact that information is filtered for us.

What's next?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23

So the reason for all of these mass murders are because the news agencies are reporting the full details of the events?

Yeh right.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: liteonit6969
Either way the msm have NO RIGHT to decide what parts of a story will be released under the pretense it's for our own good.


Says who? As long as it isn't slanderous or libel the media can report any damn thing that it wants. It has no obligation to inform us. Its only obligation is to make money for the people who own it, just like any other COMPANY.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner


What is wrong with the topic?

I think it is an important point in that the media openly say we are not going to give you the information on this person. All the gruesome facts etc are shared but not the name.

The point I'm getting at is that journalists are there to present a story in the full.....not decide to pick and choose what details to be left out for whatever agenda.

It is frightening how quickly everyone just agrees it is OK for them to be fed the story of what happened. They have left out his name....what else has been left out? What else has been added?


The FACT is the information we are being fed is shaped to fit a purpose. This is an example of that.

Is this OK that the media can choose what is OK for you to know?

Pathetic



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

I didn't say they can't report what they want....I'm saying why is it OK that people like you accept what slant or agenda put on the story and spoon fed to you?

Do you like you information filtered for you to make sure it is OK for your fragile mind? To make sure it doesn't offend anyone? To ensure that someone reading it will not go and do the same?

I choose that no one has the right to filter what I read because they don't know what's best for me. I do.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

hum but he's not going to know that since he's dead so why bother?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
he was shooting people if they admitted they had a religion . yet it says he claimed he was spiritual, he just didn't agree with religion and decided to take out a few "religious nuts" on his way out of the land of the living. i think that's news worthy.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: liteonit6969

As you have suggested the info is there..why give this POS what he wants via exposure to multiple millions via media..no if you want to know look it up..it does not need to be advertised..he was a nobody and should remain one.
edit on 2-10-2015 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: liteonit6969

As you have suggested the info is there..why give this POS what he wants via exposure to multiple millions via media..no if you want to know look it up..it does not need to be advertised..he was a nobody and should remain one.


nonsense. when a person has a motive that dangerous (modifying the social environment based on world view), it should be blasted from the roof tops in shiny lights so the people are aware of what's happening to their country.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join