(Yesterday, 01:44 PM)MalevolentTwitch Wrote: I really wish we would stop making this about the weapons being used vs the availability / banning of potential weapons. There's just no such thing as gun violence, or car violence, or knife violence, etc. There is only violence...
I agree with you, but the media can pull a lot more content for their occupation if the acts of violence
are individualised. Not only that, certain penalties from particular law-breaking back-up their need to
refrain from stepping outside of their usual narrative-forming habit.
Take for example the current requirement of stating or not stating the ethnic or religious identity of a suspect.
Does it categorically give the reason why the offence took place or would it leave a viewer/reader to form an
ambiguous opinion? Would such assumptions lead onto speculation and with it, the possibility of stirring
emotions that could lead to further problems?
This isn't reporting in the true sense, anymore, it's a type of low-grade Journalism that whisks the pot
for further content that might be needed as filler to maintain a false excitement around an incident and
hopefully preserve ratings.
A 'Mass Stabbing' will catch the customers' eye more than reporting a number of people were injured
during a train ride and I'm ashamed to say that it's all about grabbing the attention of those customers.
It began long before Jack The Ripper hit the headlines and will continue until maturity returns (if it was
ever there) to the trade of responsible reporting.
It's only an island if you look at it from the water.