It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:16 PM
a reply to: kaylaluv

I definitely agree with that. The average person simply wants to understand what has happened and move on. But the media milks and sensationalizes these tragedies for ratings and ad dollars as well as uses them to further political debate long after the immediate crisis has past. It's parasitic and toxic to our culture.

That said, real issues need discussion and solutions - like gun violence and mental health.
edit on 10/2/2015 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: liteonit6969

But it always has been, I feel like I am talking to a neophyte.
edit on 2-10-2015 by Jonjonj because: clarity

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:50 PM
a reply to: Jonjonj

Yes that was my point and always has been my point.
However you have moved off on a tangent claiming this is all about not giving the fame what the killer wanted and encouraging copycats.

Copycats don't copy names....they copy acts. It's that simple. What are they copying?

I have not said anything about repeating his name etc. I have said they have chosen to withhold information (his name) for a reason THEY have thought up.

You are stuck on the ridiculous excuse that by not giving his name it is going to prevent future similar cases. What I am saying is the media have no right to manipulate the news for their own purpose.

The role of the news is to inform the mass with the full unedited details. Not picking and choosing what details they will leave in.

So in order to get my point across take out this case of the killer and look at what the media is doing on a massive scale. Information is being controlled and manipulated in order to manipulate us.

Back to this case....for example the media is manipulating those potentials murderers by not giving the name of the killer as you say.

Are you happy that the government and media are allowed to control the flow of ALL news to whatever narrative they choose?

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:52 PM
a reply to: Jonjonj

By the way using words like neophyte bore me. Neophyte is a word I am new to. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas in a clear manner. Using language to alienate or create an illusion of intelligence negates it's communicate.

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: liteonit6969

My point was simple, there is a great difference between being informed and being fed irrelevant detail for the purposes of glorifying and gaining viewers. That is just titillation and leads to a dumbing down of everyone. Desensitization, not a game I want to play. It leads to trivialization and I know where that leads to. It would seem you want that.
I am sorry if you did not know the word, I do not apologise for using it, it seemed apt. And you have been changing the goal posts all thread.
By the way, talking as if I do not get the point is condescending too, do you not think?
Here is a word you may know...whatever!

edit on 2-10-2015 by Jonjonj because: addition

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: Jonjonj

I have not been moving the goal posts all thread. This is the OP...


Browsing through many different media sites and uk TV chat shows I am amazed and furious that the idiotic idea of not naming the person who murdered all of those people. The reason fed to us is that they will not give him the fame. Are the public that stupid and gullible to believe this? Do they not realise that this info will come out? 
Is this some kind of social media experiment to see how fast information can spread without the help of the msm? 

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. 

Should this not be stopped now before it is the accepted thing among the mass?

It sets out clearly that I am unhappy that the media have decided to withhold the killers name. There is nothing to do with repeating his name and giving him airtime. The purpose as set out in the OP is that information is being controlled and manipulated.

Why do you think your post that you "feel like I am talking to a neophyte" was apt?

Am I a neophyte of this subject of mass murders? Am I a neophyte to the idea of a debate? Am I a neophyte to the use of words that serve no purpose in posts such as neophyte?

As I was the creator of the thread I would be the opposite of a neophyte as my OP sets the tone and direction of the thread. Therefore I will suggest you are the neophyte in that you are new to the idea of a proper debate and understanding basic points.

That is the last time I will ever use the word neophyte again as it is useless and 99% of the people I communicate with don't use it or have never used it.

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 12:27 AM
Yes they do. It's a good idea.

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 12:30 AM
what good is being famous if you're dead? such a stupid way of thinking, but still, don't give killers like this any kind of fame.
edit on 4-10-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 01:36 AM
The media's main interests are collecting revenue. The more people watch the station the more revenue is created. Thus up until now most of them ignore the fact their reports create more copy cats.

Nobody is saying the names wont be available, they are just trying to establish a policy in which the names wont become famous to the point that everyone will recall them.

I can still recall the names of many of the school shooters. Without doing a search the Columbine Killers names popped up in my head.

The minds that do these shootings are mostly unpopular folks, unable to succeed at relationships or anything else in this point of their lives and cannot see beyond their current status. They see a mass shooting event event as their one shot at glory and fame which otherwise they would never be known for anything, but want to show the world they can create a successful killing event, become television reality stars and thus have their names published along with their grievances.

Will not publishing their names stop the killings? Probably not, but I have no doubt less of these broken minds will latch on to these stories and think of ways to create their own media suicide event.
edit on 10/4/15 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 08:13 AM
a reply to: liteonit6969

Well, you see, that person is entitled to certain protections the same as you or I would appreciate until that person is convicted in a court of law. It has little to do with fame, but more to do with not being found "infamous" when one may not actually be guilty.

I suppose some would have the entire legal system and every event on the street and on TV become one giant exercise in "Fundamental Attribution Error" a system based on rumor, gossip, bullying and entertainment.

Vindictiveness abounds in the US, maybe we should go back to lynchings and mobs....If not just to satisfy and keep occupied the bored cattle so many of us are.

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 08:14 AM
a reply to: verylowfrequency

....Never mind that many of these people were bullied by the rest of the cattle....

posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 08:18 AM
What if the killer just happened to have the same name as you do?.

How would you feel if you introduced yourself and the person you introduced yourself to asked you if you were....

...." That guy who...? "

Even worse, if some lunatic/vigilante went out to kill you thinking you were that guy named whatever....

Think much?.


posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: liteonit6969

Come on. Is this a real question?
Many of these people are doing it for the fame. Take away the fame and they have nothing.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in