where's martin's? Boston bomber on the cover of the Rolling Stones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

---

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

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?

---

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.

What's the big deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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.



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.

---

Great post Rudy, and it reflects on what I think is the larger problem.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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:
http://ceicunoi.files.wordpress.com/...dpress-com.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

This is not a matter of spin or interpretation: it's a direct extension of your view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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.

---

Really? In what sense has this case 'misled' anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

---

But that's a different point. Are the 'facts' of this issue of Rolling Stone in dispute?

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'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

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.

---

They would still be accused of bias by some, just as are all news outlets.