No man is an island,Wesley Brannock said:The point to " inform " the people has long since left the media now its about making killers famous REAL killers mind you not fictional ones. If " informing " now a days means constantly covering a story to the point of harassing the families of murder victims then yes they are " informing ". If " informing " means that your going to turn everything you don't approve of into a WITCH HUNT because something " newsworthy " happened then yes they are " informing ". If " informing " means telling people that the guns , video games , or whatever is to blame then yes they are " informing ". If " informing " means covering only one story of lives being lost all week long then yes they are " informing ". The line between " informing " and glorifying is thin. However on a almost daily basis is being stomped on , spit on by the very people to whom are SUPPOSED to uphold it. My way of confirming this is the FACT in less then ten minutes they managed to politicize it. They politicized it by pointing a finger at everyone but the killer. I can't take the view point of a " news " company seriously when they cover a school shooting and follow it by saying. " This is responsible for the mass killing is ( enter preference ) instead of the shooter ". That person who shot up the school was to blame for the incident yet they will instead blame whatever scapegoat they can find. While people will call it " informing " when instead it simply a format for demonizing that to which had no part in any wrong doing. Tell me did a video game pull the trigger or a PERSON. Did the gun pull its own trigger or did that require a PERSON. Did the entire society kill those kids or did one PERSON do it. All I blame the media for is turning the killer into a star of sorts. People that do horrible things should be forgotten in time while the teachers that used their own bodies to shield the children from a rain of bullets should be remember for their bravery. Yet most people can only remember the name and face of the shooter. Why ? Simple the " news " wanted to " inform " people. ( This is the one and only response I will do. )Mr F. said:Guh.Wesley Brannock said:While I didn't like the suicide part I see why Jimothy Sterling used it. He wanted to show the point that real violence was different then video game violence by showing the difference not in a verbal way thats been argued a hundred times over. But in a visual way an effective way. I for one would defend the way in which it is. Why ? Simple for once the news ( to whom shows real violence all the time ) is being shown that the community at large does in fact despise real violence. I for one wouldn't be surprised if members of the site wanted this to be taken down for said reason. In that light we can't be the one's " glorifying " violence it would be C.N.N , Fox news , and other " news " outlets onto which show real violence as the " glorifiers " of violence. Besides here is one question I'd like answered by the media. Which news outlet released the killers face first video game sites or traditional news outlets ?
My girlfriend pointed me towards the video (And the thread) based on the logic that she would get to see some wonderful, wonderful rage on my part. She does so love my rants.
Gonna jump over your first arguments and strait to your assumptions that in comparison to games, it is the News media that glorifies violence. If informing people of a situation is the glorification of a situation, then I glorify racism. I am currently glorifying in the mire of Sociology (As I am being informed of a situation). The authors who write books glorify the subject matter of the book, regardless of what the book is about. I glorify the act of rape because a poem I once wrote got into a book about dealing with rape. Huh. Your logic is broken.
See, that is all I am picking apart here. Yes, the news media shows "Real" violence whilst gamers dont have to deal with real violence. Yet one is to inform (And entertain, to a degree, depends on the news outlet) and the other is to purely entertain. I don't watch the news (Or read it, as is more common with me) because I love seeing the corpses of young Syrian men. I watch it because I wish to remain informed as to the hell these people are going through.
Finally, the question you wish to ask the media:
Of course it was the fucking news media that released his face first. Gaming websites do not cover that kind of story, gaming websites do not have the resources to cover that kind of story. You might as well say "I want to know which media showed fight scenes from Soul Calibur" and use that as proof that gaming media is more violent then the reverse.
This argument is not as simple as Jim would like to argue. But I wont drag myself into the mire of this thread.
Just pick apart a single post, point out the mistakes in the logic and the central argument, and then step out.
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
You cannot just treat every incident as a stand alone incident. Now, as for anything else? You have just gone off on a rather interesting rant about how you hate the news media. With incredibly poor formatting that makes it rather difficult to read. But you do not really come across as a rational individual, so I guess that helps.
With regards to how the media reports things? It depends on the news outlet to be honest. Al Jazeera reports in a different way from the BBC, Both report in a different way to Faux News. Some are more reputable then others.
If a society gets plagued by mass shootings (Seriously, the states faces them a lot more then anyone else) then perhaps you should look to society and further than the individual.