I'm talking about a larger context than Zimmerman and even the US, based on about 25 yeas of being aware of how arguments and statements are presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
I'm talking about a larger context than Zimmerman and even the US, based on about 25 yeas of being aware of how arguments and statements are presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Come on Rudy......What will happen if every pretty face we see becomes a role model?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Nah...Most people are too rudimentary for this....If I think twice, I wouldn't mind if a certain guy kidnapped me. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Rudy
Why would it be sick?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Would it be more comforting if he was more obviously 'evil' or fell into an easily stereotyped beardy Muslim fanatic living in the desert counting his camels?
The fact is that this character was complicated but seemed pretty normal until the terrorist attacks. He wasn't an attention seeker, a loser who had no other way of being successful except by plastering himself over the newspapers by killing thousands. He was successful by any measure, popular and intelligent with a place at medical school, yet he threw it away by choosing to kill as many civilians as possible. Yet here you are, joined by several other people who notably are all American in saying you do not wish to try to understand how it is that he could do what he did. So how does sticking your fingers into your ears and saying that you don't want to hear or understand help you exactly?
You might not be interested in these details but for organisations like the CIA and FBI who are in the business of identifying future terrorists how this kid went from someone who was Westernised (which is after all the point of the cover photo, he was taking self-portraits having preened himself which is what a lot of well adjusted kids do), at ease in his new host country, popular and successful to someone who wanted to hurt his host nation as much as he possibly could is of great importance, and as someone who doesn't care for knee-jerk responses nor simple one word explanations of why things happen, I'm interested too.
Its definitely not easy or comfortable finding out more about home-grown terrorists, after all their actions are suggestive that your cultural values are so flawed that someone completely immersed in it can hate it so much that they will be willing to give their lives to destroy it. It is even more difficult when you realise that they are not mentally ill but are indeed quite rational and sometimes well respected members of the community (like some of the 7/7 bombers were in the UK). The alternative however is simply to not try to understand which to put it mildly is intellectual laziness and complacent. I simply do not understand your lack of willingness to try and figure out why things happened a certain way.
If you don't give "give a rats ass" then why are you posting?Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Oh, and just so that you don't mangle and cluster f### anymore with your inaccurate, self aggrandizing attempts at grammatical 'explanation' , if that is what you were trying to do, the name of the Magazine is Rolling Stone. Not THE Rolling Stone.
"Also, i think the only known major criminal the Rolling stone had" Post # 36<<<< Now, you try to explain with gibberish how this is correct and the way that it should be written or used in conversation. If it were Time magazine would you have said, the Time magazine or the Newsweek Magazine? You would. Educated people would not.
So, when you argue about issues stop trying to be the know-it-all when in fact you are very ill informed. Just sayin, irony etc. ;)
I wasn't suggesting either photo is the right way to portray such a person, but to show one side without the other clearly does not show the character of such a person. Hiding in a boat while police laser sights tag your head isn't normal by any means, but that is also part of his history now, the same as the "nice" photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
And I agree people like to know about even the most evil in other humans. But I personally think some of these people want this... fame through evil acts. He could have just as easily used smoke bombs, came forward and admitted to it, and told his story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
You've taken what I've said and read a lot into it that wasn't said. See above for the basics, and you must know full well that my point on either photo being judged a "sick" is entirely up to the person viewing the photo. Both his normal and abnormal life are part of his history now, so to portray either one or the other isn't really proper IMO.
As for the story, details, motivations, etc, you'll notice that I said I would not care. I'm not a medical expert that can properly assess his mental state or upbringing, nor am I trained in interrogation that might lead to his motivations and real reasons behind his actions. I didn't suggest or imply that nobody should know, but the trained professionals can figure it all out as far as I'm concerned.
What I oppose is the "fame" he will get surrounding his actions. Regardless of motivations I personally think that blatant, indiscriminate terrorism that takes human life without regard should be met with harsh punishment, to include not giving such people the satisfaction of any acknowledgement of who they are. I personally think that is what many of them seek.
Terrorist attacks are so few that I don't think any expert would consider any culture that a person lives in by their own free will a justification of the actions, nor a rational decision. There is no lack of willingness on my part to understand why people do such things, it has taken place in many forms for centuries. The same as with politics, the greatest deep rooted motivations are most often a quest for power, or a feeling of being powerless. Neither IMO justifies intentionally killing other humans that had no first hand involvement, even if the terrorists deep rooted motivations are legitimate.
WTF are you talking about? you started the whole Nazi grammarian nonsense. I just made you look stupid for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Matt Taibbi Explains the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Rolling Stone Cover | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
"ill-informed" morons working there can't even get it straight, apparently.
All you need to do is go search google for "the rolling stone" and you will see it's commonly used. Hey, just pretend it's a thesaurus and you are trying to look smart.
1. The other side of his person was already well known and debated on tones of papers.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
2. I think you're wrong. Tsarnaev wasn't looking for fame. Otherwise he wouldn't have run and hide after the incident. If fame was in his cards he would have stayed and shout ''hey guys, it's me who did this carnage''. But after the way he acted it's obvious he hoped he'll never be recognized and caught.
I am reminded of a certain other American on these forums who was more than happy to state that there is no need to see 'shades of grey' when assessing an issue, only 'black and white'. There is no other nation in the world, it seems to me, where public displays of ignorance — worse, of revelling in ignorance and berating those they consider 'intellectual' (which generally, in these terms, just means 'able to write in proper English') — are met with so little of the derision they deserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
You do not have the capabilities to make anyone else look stupid. That you believe you do is an example of sheer delusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
Not every depiction of such an individual has also to stress how bad/evil/appalling/sick they are. This can be taken as read from the actions that caused discussion of them in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
To take this a stage further, you clearly do not believe in freedom of the press.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Incidentally, it says quite a lot that the thread starter is unable even to spell the name of the magazine involved correctly. This doesn't bode well for whatever arguments they then seek to make — especially not for criticism of journalists, a job they themselves could never hope to perform.
Vintage stuff from BDunnell. I can't help admiring it.
How very surprising to see dunnell throw personal insults again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
How very noble of you to make such a comparison. Let's look at the facts - one man kills someone who is trying to bash his head against concrete and who is drugged up, the other kills innocent people, including an 8 year old child and injures hundreds of other innocent people. Equal? Or have you just exposed yourself as the biggest enemy of intelligence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spafranco
Would you have one rather than the other on the cover of a magazine? Or neither?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
I would prefer to not have terrorists or criminals of any kind on magazine covers, but to be honest, I don't think it matters much who is on the cover of a magazine. I personally am not offended or bothered even slightly at anyone being on the cover, be it Pol Pot, Attila or the blood-covered Boston bomber. As for Zimmermann, why not, if he were to want it? He has been through hell due to biased media coverage and race baiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I agree completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
The idea that giving such individuals publicity is, in itself, problematic strikes me as odd. In these instances, the problem, surely, lies not in the publicity itself but those who are stupid enough to be influenced. The fact that the vast majority of people are not influenced, nor affected, in the slightest always gets ignored. Why criticise, let alone censor or legislate, on the basis of the tiny minority who are driven to behave in a certain way on the basis of reading or viewing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
And I shall add that anyway terrorists' pics are on the front page of all newspapers when incidents like the one in Boston happen. So why making so much fuss when the pic is on a magazine?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
If he wasn't looking for the recognition, why was a person with such intelligence planning such an act without any real though to the consequences and/or a proper and realistic escape plan? Maybe if you are correct we should be showing photos with titles such as "Another Stupid One From School".Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
You've just given a shining example of why I personally don't think the public needs to know anything about such people. Your statement above does not reflect truth, but rather you taking something I never stated and adding your spin to it. The modern day media, who are hardly journalists by any definition, don't often deal with many facts at all. They will all create stories with theories, spin, slants, views, and opinions that in most cases can't be backed up with confirmed facts. This is not responsible reporting, and often the public opinion is based on items other than facts, which further skews the lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
If we had responsible journalists with ethics standards that reported facts, that would be another story. But we don't... and most of the world either knows that or turns a blind eye to the opinion they don't like, regardless of the source, or a lack of any facts behind it.
And do us both a favor... don't pretend to know what I think if you "take it a stage further". I'm more than capable of speaking for myself and don't need anyone adding their "spin" to what I say. ;)
I think that even psychologists can't say this. The only one who knew the answer is dead now. Matter of fact, on different scales we all do sometimes things that seem illogical. I did such a thing last week.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Then BDunnell is right. Under the communist regime when press was controlled by authorities such things were never revealed to the public. There were cases of celebrities who were murdered on violent circumstances and people knew this because of rumours but the press never said more than x or y has died in tragic circumstances. If victims were ordinary people the press would say nothing. Even the case of a serial sex killer who was caught was presented on about 5 little rows with a picture of the size of our avatars.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Your statement would have been true in a world of responsible media and intelligent audiences. The world I live in is a bit different. For instance, I don't watch TV but people around me do. The difference in perceptions and the way of thinking is drastic. My dad reads tabloids, watches lots of TV stuff and has some Internet news for dessert. As a result, being a generally intelligent person, well versed in literature and arts, he can't eat a sausage without speculating about how dangerous it is to his health and what kind of chemicals it contains. Sometimes he indulges in conspiracy theories. That is largely based on what he learns from the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'm the last man to insist on censoring or legislating something, but I don't mind criticizing or, rather sensitizing people about the fact that what they do may harm others. In the journo/reader pair the journo is the more knowledgeable and intelligent guy by definition. That's why he writes and the reader reads. He's the leader and the reader is the follower. The journalist, especially the one covering sensitive subjects has to be ultra-responsible, realizing that his writing can mislead people. This was not the case with this publication.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What's the big deal?
You aren't seeing my major point. I have no problem at all with the truth being told to the public with very few exceptions. The problem I have is the lack of the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact. These days they often don't deal with facts much at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
It is probably somewhat human nature to speculate, ponder, look for theories, etc but this will be done at the public level regardless. If the press/media does so before the public even sees the information, the real truth becomes more and more skewed.
Great post Rudy, and it reflects on what I think is the larger problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
In this case I have not read the story, and have no intention to. This is due to the past history I have seen with the publication of not dealing much with facts, and often ignoring major facts.
Modern day press/media/journalists have moved so far away from facts and so near to sensationalism that using many (if not most) modern sources will lead you far from the truth. And due to this, many actually take as truth the misinformation given to them, and spread it further promoting such agenda. I have no issue with a source speculating if they identify it as such, but most speculate and present it as fact, ignoring solid evidence the does not support their speculation. I don't know how many times I've researched subjects with readily available information that would punch giant holes in most of what the media is reporting.
If there were a media source that used quality and credible references, cited credible sources, and kept all of the spin out of their reporting then I would gladly pay for it. I've yet to find one in any recent years.
Can you believe that in my country a TV channel debated a case of a lawyer who disappeared and the suspect was her policeman husband for 239 nights in a row? And a lot of idiots watched the debate every night until 2a.m.......One night tghey discussed about 6 hours and even started a poll with the Q ''do you believe that between Bran and Rucar, policeman Cioaca (the husband) stopped to pee?"" :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
http://ceicunoi.files.wordpress.com/...dpress-com.jpg
I agree with what you've said here. To be completely fair though, it must be said that both sides of the political divide engage in this kind of "reporting". It's only because most of the major media lean toward the left that it seems only one side does it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
In making that comment, you have just proved my point exactly. How on earth can you say you believe in a free press and, at the same time, say 'the public doesn't need to know anything about such people'? Who are you to decide what the public should or should not know about? The same goes for any of us. If the information is accurate, there should be no problem publishing it. You can't just brush these individuals under the carpet and hope they go away. And what other stuff do you 'not think we should know about'? It's a dangerous path down which to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
This is not a matter of spin or interpretation: it's a direct extension of your view.
With respect to your father and his ilk, why should behaviour, in this case of the media, have to be altered so as to cater for the fears of such people based on whatever media they happen to consume? I dislike the idea that we must now censor and legislate on those grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
We see the same pattern in other aspects of US media — for instance, Janet Jackson showing the merest bit of cleavage at the Superbowl provoked a reaction so outrageous as to appear nonsensical. The incident was nothing, yet the response to it was dictated by the most conservative, prudish sections of society. It seemed very backward.
Really? In what sense has this case 'misled' anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
But that's a different point. Are the 'facts' of this issue of Rolling Stone in dispute?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I also struggle to understand what you mean when you say you 'have a problem with the press/media not being held accountable at a higher level for spreading fact'. Why should anyone be held accountable for 'spreading fact'?
They would still be accused of bias by some, just as are all news outlets.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
See the highlighted above. You have done exactly what the press and media are allowed to do freely... not deal with facts. In two posts you have "taken it a stage further" and made an "extension" of my view. Neither are my view, thus the information has been spun and twisted as you desired.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The press should be free to report facts, but not free to report spin, theories, conjecture, etc without identification of the information as such. These points are all clarified through the posts, and thus your view of extension or stages being added are simply spin. Unless you wish you debate that you are more entitled to clarify my view than I am, I really don't see any debate to be had here.
Fact > spin, fiction, speculation, etc That's my real concern with the media.
As for exceptions I did mention, there are IMO times when in the interests of security and such things that the general public should not be informed of the truth, at least until actions have been taken by the respective agencies to minimize the risks of the issues discovered. There are always times when full disclosure of the truth may endanger people without need, and times that full disclosure is the appropriate thing. This is even true on a smaller level such as personal relations with others.
There you go again, now seeking to call off any further debate on the grounds, it would appear, that not everyone agrees with you. If this is your definition of 'freedom of expression', it's not very wide-ranging — it seems to wish to restrict the press from publishing material about certain individuals just because you find them offensive (as far as I can gather), and to put an end to discussion of the surrounding issues. If you consider me again to 'not be dealing with facts', I'd be grateful if you could explain what is wrong with my comments on your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I don't think you really understand the issue at stake, either. The instance we are discussing has nothing to do with 'facts'. I am not aware of the facts of the content of Rolling Stone being in dispute; rather, people are debating the wisdom of putting the suspected bomber on the cover. A very different matter. If the articles inside contain inaccuracies, then fair enough, but this is not the topic in hand.
I've made clear already that I haven't read the article, and have no intention to based on my view of the "journalism" within Rolling Stone. To quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As for the second point you quoted, my wording was poor. I don't think the press should be obligated to report fact, and they should surely omit what they don't choose to report. My intention was that they should be held to standards of reporting what is factual when they report it, to the best of their ability. Though even facts can be presented in a biased way by omitting other facts, at least that standard would promote the media dealing with truths rather than untruths in most circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
This I can agree would happen without doubt. But if such a source existed and time after time you could find that the sources and means listed were accurate, would you not give it more weight than an article without sources? I know I would.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Please quote where I suggested that debate should be called off due to differing opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
What I have stated was that in that particular instance there was no debate to be had. I am 100% certain that I am much more aware of my views than you are. That is fact.
In your own words you state making extensions of my thoughts, or taking it to another stage, etc. You may do so if you wish, but in this case doing so led you to untruths. So if you wish to continue stating untruths, by all means do so. If you wish to deal with facts, allow me to clarify my views as my factual thoughts, rather than you attempting to think for me. As above I would have no issue admitting to poor wording or unclear statements, but I do have issue with others attempting to add facts which were never presented by me as even an opinion of mine.
I've made clear my view on the photo. Many opposed the article I referenced that stated some wanted to see him with laser dots on his head during arrest. Just as they have a right to oppose that view, others have a right to oppose the photo that does exist. What's I've stated was simply that I would prefer these whack jobs get no coverage... and if so coverage dealing with facts. You and others can agree or disagree with that, it's simply my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Surely this disqualifies you completely from commenting on anything to do with the factual accuracy of the story contained within? This, in part, is what you're doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Firstly, what has this got to do with the issue of whether or not the alleged terrorist is pictured on the front page?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Secondly, how do you know that the story inside did not live up to these standards, given that you have not read it and will not read it?
How does that tally with a belief in freedom of the press? You can't just have freedom of the press as and when you wish, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
In which case surely you would prefer that terrorist incidents simply are not reported and are covered up Soviet style. Coverage of a terrorist attack or gun attack will by its very nature deal with the perpetrators, after all 'who did it?' is quite a natural question to ask in such circumstances no?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
As for whether this guy and his brother sought fame, they neglected rule no 1 page 1 of the Jihadists rulebook which is to record a video of themselves before the attack justifying their attack and spreading it on the internet. Do they really look like people who did it for fame or rather people who wanted to kill as many Americans as possible?
Probably because I used your single post as an entry point to address many issues raised over several posts by several people. I wasn't singling you out but I didn't make that clear either. Apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
As an active participant in a democracy aren't you interested in fulfilling your obligations as a voter?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
If he was behind an attack in my country I would be very interested to see if there was some societal or cultural failing that pushed him towards terrorism. I would then be inclined to think about whether a particular party was interested in addressing that issue when thinking of who to vote for, although obviously this would be one factor among very many.
As for not being trained or educated in this field I find that rather facile. I am no engineer, that does not stop me from reading magazines in that field regarding racecars and bikes to see how they work. Surely curiosity comes into play here no?
You've just stated that you have no interest in finding out what makes these people tick, so on what basis do you believe that seeking fame is what motivates these people? In the Boston bombings case I would have thought it was hatred and a desire to inflict as much physical damage on as many Americans as possible that was the motivation.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Not for many in the USA, it seems, where dismissing them as 'whack jobs' while professing not to care about the motivation behind their actions would appear to be sufficient 'analysis'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
I find it interesting that someone who refers to the Boston suspects as 'whack jobs' should also say that coverage relating to them must 'deal with facts'. In which 'facts' is the use of the phrase 'whack jobs' based, precisely? It can't be expert medical opinion, given that the same individual should profess not to care what the underlying reasons behind their terrorism actually are.
Presumably because the individual to whom you were replying had read about this motivation in one of the media outlets they claim to so dislike and distrust owing to their lack of 'facts'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Looking slutty is not against the law. However, it is generally a good idea to behave appropriately for the situation. It boils down to one's own intelligence, responsibility and class. If you are for abolishing those things as inventions of right wing bigots, that's a whole different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
That very Rolling Stone has worked long and hard to establish the cult of rock stars, which is a part of the celebrity culture in general. It also has put a lot of effort into making the appearance on its cover one of the most desired decorations for any star. Then, having established a tradition of publishing cover stories on celebrities, whose fame and success many young people aspire to replicate, it publishes a portrait of a good looking young man with curly hair, effectively putting him in the same league with other celebrities. On top of that, they present the guy as "The Bomber". I don't know how much you are into the rock'n'roll culture, but the word "bomber" has generally positive connotations in that culture and appears numerous times in song lyrics, is used as nicknames etc. Now, I believe that with all likelihood at least a certain number of RS readers might have extended the association with a celebrity status to to the poor Mr. Tsarnaev. This is as misleading and irresponsible as it gets in my book.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I haven't disputed anything in the article, but I've simply stated my opinion on the likely intention. We got Rolling Stone for free for about 2-3 years until we told them to stop sending the things. My experience with the publication is that they rarely deal with facts much, and often but as big a spin/twist they can on anything that might connect to politics. If I read the article today and it agreed exactly with what I think it would give me no satisfaction, but drive me to seek other sources in search of the truth.
As for the coverage, the issue can be covered, analysis by appropriate experts done and any lessons learned passed on without any recognition of the people involved. We don't need a name, a specific nationality, or a photo IMO.