Good vs. Bad News Experiment

Static · #1 (**permalink**) 03-07-2008, 10:44 AM

So I went and collected all these headlines from a couple sites I visit because I wanted to show the crazy amount of difference good news gets vs. bad news. I put anything that was not important but still got headline attention in with the 'bad news' because nobody needs to know it or it's just not important enough imo to be headline news.

So now I ask the question, how can a small number of people in our society say things like video games, movies, and music are what's causing all the voilence in the world, when the mainstream media puts stuff like this up as headline news in one single day? Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

It's like they're saying "hey, don't go out and shoot up your school, but hey! Check this shit out, did you see it, some kid just shot up his school!!"

I get they have to show what happens in the world, but if they're going to argue that shit like movies/music/games are what's causing bad things to happen in society, they have to include media, and if they're going to put bans or restrictions on movies/music/games, they have to include media too. There is no way to explain the ratio between the good and bad news from 4 mainstream media sites on one single day.

Just my take.

rightwinger · 03-08-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

So now I ask the question, how can a small number of people in our society say things like video games, movies, and music are what's causing all the voilence in the world, when the mainstream media puts stuff like this up as headline news in one single day? Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you?

People in our society, who blame any media outlet for violence, are retarded.

Art imitates life, not the other way around. And the news just reports things that are going on. But, bad news sells more. Violence sells. Kind of like that Tool song "Vicarious", ever hear it?

Quote:

and if they're going to put bans or restrictions on movies/music/games, they have to include media too

uhh, how about just "no bans"? Sound good? I'm sure that's something you would support.

But I do get your point. And the way in which they censor things is also kind of funny.

You can have that dateline "to catch a predator" read transcripts, about sodomizing a 13 year old boy. But you can't say "Holy shit, that's fucked up!!!" The second one would get bleeped.

Also, on Dr. Phil....during the day, I once watched a show about a grandfather molesting his 6 year old daughter. That is allowed on the air....but Janet Jackson's pasty covered boob, causes a frenzy.

It's odd. I'd rather just get rid of the restrictions, and let the free market decide.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 03-08-2008, 07:54 PM

What also becomes a problem (I more or less agree with the points made so far) is when people in society stop taking the responsibility to think rationally about what is spewed out of the idiot box by the media. We live in a culture where I think it's safe to say that the majority repeat whatever they hear on TV as gospel truth without bothering to check anything else out. This is not meant to be conspiratorial or anything like that, just the simple fact that every single media outlet has an agenda. They are going to tailor their broadcasts and publications to meet their agenda. If we as the people cannot see that a corporate media is not going to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, we are doomed.

It is this lack of personal responsibility that allows the media to have the hold that it does. Yes I think the ethics of media are awful (especially since 2005 when the restrictions on size of media conglomerates was all but eliminated) but how long are we going to get spoonfed this bullshit without spitting it out and asking for something else?

Somedays I feel like the best option is to just stop paying attention to it and encouraging others to do the same.

JumpInTheFire · 03-10-2008, 02:59 AM

no bans on anything, as banning anything in a free-world doesn't make much sense

personal responsibility, which is what comes with personal freedoms and liberties

and how about a less-biased not looking to make a quick buck media? now that would be the day

NachtEngel · 03-10-2008, 07:40 AM

You have to ban some things, in my opinion. I am sure you would have a lot of irritated people if they started playing bestiality and child porn on local television channels for entertainment. Complete freedom does not exist anyway. That wont happen unless we become an Anarchy.

Estefanina · 03-10-2008, 10:25 AM

The media covers bad news because it sells better. They've been doing this since newspapers became popular. What's going to sell more papers, "Barbara Streisand is killed in bloody car crash," or "Genius solves all economic problems" ? Seriously...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

how long are we going to get spoonfed this bullshit without spitting it out and asking for something else?

Somedays I feel like the best option is to just stop paying attention to it and encouraging others to do the same.

Amen, brother.

Quote:

You have to ban some things, in my opinion. I am sure you would have a lot of irritated people if they started playing bestiality and child porn on local television channels for entertainment. Complete freedom does not exist anyway. That wont happen unless we become an Anarchy.

Nacht, I disagree. People will be irritated no matter what is shown on local television channels. Complete freedom exists in everyone. You choose what to expose yourself to. You choose what to ignore.

NachtEngel · 03-10-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estefanina

The media covers bad news because it sells better. They've been doing this since newspapers became popular. What's going to sell more papers, "Barbara Streisand is killed in bloody car crash," or "Genius solves all economic problems" ? Seriously...

Amen, brother.

Nacht, I disagree. People will be irritated no matter what is shown on local television channels. Complete freedom exists in everyone. You choose what to expose yourself to. You choose what to ignore.

So you support child porn?

WillyBubba · 03-10-2008, 11:37 AM

Children are not legal adults. Their parents are responsible and they are not considered mature or intelligent enough to consent to such acts or handle the consequences. Protecting them such from predation is no different than not allowing them behind the wheel of a car.

NachtEngel · 03-10-2008, 11:57 AM

My point was directed at the "ban nothing comment". In a "free world" it would be legal to put them in porn and show it on local television. Nothing would be illegal. In a "free world" they would be able to get behind the wheel of a car at any age. The only thing stopping them would be their parent. There wouldn't be a legal age to drive though. In a free world someone could get away with selling their own children to be in local porn shows. Is it the childs responsibility to not do that? In a free world does that make it acceptable to let people do that? In a free world you could have children just to make them work all day like slaves.

Just to be clear I'm not talking about the kind of freedom we have now. When you say "ban nothing" and "free world" I am thinking absolute freedom. Anarchy, anything goes.

WillyBubba · 03-10-2008, 12:06 PM

I disagree. By 'free' you essentially mean anarchy (and I can't see it having a neutral or positive meaning in this particular instance). If I'm 'free' to sell someone into slavery then certainly they are 'free' to resist in whatever means they can? Wouldn't you agree, if we follow that line of logic?

We have unalienable rights. Others are not supposed to be allowed to restrict our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The amendments follow these. I cannot force someone to do something they do not desire to. Seeing children as easily manipulated, tricked, or forced to do things they otherwise wouldn't or are unaware are not in their best interest, we put them in the care of (most generally) their parents until the age of 18.