[Davo45]

Police Magazine ran an article called "Citizen Defensive Shootings" or something very close to that. Clint Smith did an outstanding job of explaining that, as LEOs, the media largely gets their story from us at the scene, or later from our reports. He emphasized NOT calling the citizen who shot a violent criminal in justified self-defense a "Gunman" or "Shooter" and especially not "Suspect", but rather "Legally Armed Citizen". That and to NOT call the criminal who was shot a "Victim" but what they are "Felony Suspect" or if they're dead "Perpetrator".

I have seen a FEW news stories reported this way, before this article was ever written. Hopefully there'll be a lot more of them.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Davo45

Police Magazine ran an article called "Citizen Defensive Shootings" or something very close to that. Clint Smith did an outstanding job of explaining that, as LEOs, the media largely gets their story from us at the scene, or later from our reports. He emphasized NOT calling the citizen who shot a violent criminal in justified self-defense a "Gunman" or "Shooter" and especially not "Suspect", but rather "Legally Armed Citizen". That and to NOT call the criminal who was shot a "Victim" but what they are "Felony Suspect" or if they're dead "Perpetrator".

A good step in the right direction.

But will it sell ads as well as, "Gunman's Victim Bleeds to Death on Sidewalk Before Paramedics Arrive at Scene."

[therewolf]

White people were being stoned to death with bricks in the riots

which broke out after the Rodney King verdict.

Media carefully played only the sensational part of the

tape which portrayed the LEOs involved as goons.

People believed irresponsible propaganda broadcast by

the media.

Was the media held responsible in the deaths of these people?

Afraid not...

But why should the media care if people died, as long as

everybody knows what type of hard-on pill to buy?

[AusLach]

Originally Posted by therewolf

Was the media held responsible in the deaths of these people? Afraid not...

Why should the media be held responsible for the deaths? Were the reporters doing the killing?

Originally Posted by therewolf

But why should the media care if people died, as long as everybody knows what type of hard-on pill to buy?

Three words: Commercial News Media

Honestly, you watch this an expect to hear entirely non-biased reports, free from advertising material as well? Here's some news for ya: news outlets only report what will excite and incite the viewer into coming back to that station/paper/website/radio station. They are not in it to report the truth, they are in it to make money through any avenue they can, even *gasp* FOX

Rupert Murdoch would sell his mother down the river to make a dime but people still believe his motive are pure? News Ltd has the entire news consumer market cornered. It's no coincidence that Fox News panders to the conservative viewer yet other News Ltd publications such as the New York Times grab the liberal viewer by endorsing Obama and such. Murdoch is a brilliant guy no doubt, but he's an arsehole if ever there was one, and if the masses don't start finding our news from non-commercial sources we'll continue to be led astray by men in suits who expertly play the public like a puppet.

[therewolf]

And the First Amendment is their fail-proof teflon shield...

[therewolf]

[QUOTE=AusLach;505647]Why should the media be held responsible for the deaths? Were the reporters doing the killing?

The media irresponsibly led to these deaths by propagandizing a story, and

telling a lie by omission. The only thing which makes this scummy

approach to journalism worse is it was done to sell you a little more soap.

[Jesse17]

Originally Posted by therewolf

The media irresponsibly led to these deaths by propagandizing a story, and

telling a lie by omission. The only thing which makes this scummy

approach to journalism worse is it was done to sell you a little more soap.

Yeah, that's getting pretty close to 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', but still I don't think they could be charged with it.

[Davo45]

Originally Posted by Spider

A good step in the right direction.

But will it sell ads as well as, "Gunman's Victim Bleeds to Death on Sidewalk Before Paramedics Arrive at Scene."

Maybe it is just the local media I'm used to dealing with, but I haven't seen them editing what the police spokesman said on camera. Sure they edit the total interview, but not the pertinent details, i.e.

"Our investigation has shown that a lawfully armed citizen with a permit to carry a concealed handgun was forced to use it to defend (him/herself) against a violent criminal who tried to rob (rape, car jack, etc.) them by force. The perpetrator died as a result of his wounds. No arrest have been made, nor do we expect there to be any charges filed."

Or, like the local news media reported after the tornadoes devastated so many areas of Alabama, including Pleasant Grove; in Jefferson County when a Pleasant Grove man caught and held four looters from Florida at gun point until sheriff's deputies arrived and took them into custody. They all reported the story like this with few differences:

"A group of four looters from Florida got more than they bargained for when they were confronted by a local resident and held them at gun point until sheriff's deputies arrived and took them into custody and transported them to the Jefferson County Jail. Looting is a Class C Felony under Alabama law. Lt. _____ of the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department stated that no charges would be filed against the homeowner."

They later reported the looters names, but never did report the homeowners name. Why? Because the Jefferson County Sheriff wouldn't release it. Arrest reports are public documents, but victim's names and addresses are not unless released by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the jurisdiction the case happened in.

A reported would look rather foolish to start making things up or changing the facts around after the fact, wouldn't they? Is it possible one could? Yes. Would it help their ratings? No. Why do you think CNNs ratings are in the toilet as are several other liberal media outlets?

[therewolf]

Originally Posted by Jesse17

Yeah, that's getting pretty close to 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', but still I don't think they could be charged with it.

And right you are once again, sir.

"They" can't be "charged"(read WON'T) with it. But doesn't it disturb

you in the least that they leapfrog from sales pitch to sales pitch,

leaving a massive trail of mayhem and destruction, without so

much as a qualm of conscience?

Out in natural habitats, buzzards, beetles, worms, and hyenas who live from

picking the carrion off the bones of the dead are reviled, and

held in disgust as pariahs.

But human scavengers are put in 1500$ suits, are paid

300,000$ + a year, and broadcast on national TV, like they're

heroes, or somehow laudable. Personally, I'd choose the buzzards and

hyenas over the journalists any day. They smell better.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Davo45

Maybe it is just the local media I'm used to dealing with, but I haven't seen them editing what the police spokesman said on camera. Sure they edit the total interview, but not the pertinent details, i.e.

That sounds pretty good. I do think you might by right about a difference between local media and national "news." The big money from ads demand sensationalism, fear-mongering and often a left-wing stance on things related to firearms.