|
| Thread: How stupid is the media?..... really?? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
posted September 20, 2005 02:10 PM |
|
|
How stupid is the media?..... really??
So here's the short version of what my beef is this morning...
In an Ottawa Suburb (where i live unfortunetely) a teenaged girl dissapeared about 12 days ago. There was no sign of her at all and even after a huge neighbourhood search they still found nothing...
Finally, I think about 10 days later they find a body in a swamp and another day later they identify it as the girl that went missing. Now they suspect homicide.
Here it comes...
all freakin' week they've had articles explainning how upset and rattled the community is... but who are they taking pictures of for their articles??
YOUNG TEENAGED GIRLS!!!
IDIOTS!
Why doesn't the media just pick out the next victim for cryin' out loud!! Hey girls! Protect yourselves, be safe!! LET'S PUT YOUR PICTURE UN THE PAPER!!!
This morning was just disgusting..
2 girls, 18 years old, with sad poutty faces, hugging/holding each other in frear...
both it spaghetti strap tops, one with low rise and FREAKIN' tight pants!!(and if I was the father of these 2 bright young media stars, id have to smack'em just to show them how dumb they are to be in the paper!!)
... and guess what? last night there was a report of a second missing girl..15years old. nice.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
posted September 20, 2005 03:02 PM |
|
|
They just have a different goal than you.
The goal of the media these days is to maximize shareholder value by increasing profits. They don't care much about doing good things.
So, they're not really stupid, just created with the legal structure and incentives to do it this way.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 03:28 PM |
|
|
well then maybe I shoulda said:
"how hypocritical is the media?"
...
I mean posting all over the news these "stay safe" tactics and bringing in all these "personal defense" trainners on tv or in the paper, and then they post nice pictures of young vulnerable women! ... looks like a counter productive to me.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted September 20, 2005 05:10 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 20 Sep 2005
|
Yes, and it would even safer if the media advised all girls ages 13-19 to wear burkas. That way, the murderer won't be able to see them even if they dare set their foot out the door and walk down the public street.
Seriously, is there ANY corolation between being kidnapped/murdered and appearing in local media? Is the perpetrator picking victims out of the morning paper? Or are they choosing based on who they happens to come across in a vulnerable situation? Not vulnerable person; vulnerable situation. A sixteen-year-old who looks confident and alert to her surroundings, has a whistle visible on her keychain, etc., is in a less vulnerable situation than a hassled twenty-one-year-old who's loaded down with packages and wandering around looking for her car.
One thing I learned in my self-defense class is that most crooks are opportunists. They go for the easy target. Many of the safety tips involve making yourself look like a difficult target. They involve things like keeping your head up, staying (and looking) aware of people around you, keeping at least one hand free, etc. Nothing about staying out of the local media. Nothing about clothing, either (aside from the obvious gender-neutral stuff: "Don't jaywalk at night dressed in dark colors"  ).
The pictures of the girls were for the articles' human interest. The safety tips were for their service to the community. I see nothing hypocritical or contridictory about the two elements.
Edited: for gender assumption
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 05:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Seriously, is there ANY corolation between being kidnapped/murdered and appearing in local media? Is the perpetrator picking his victims out of the morning paper? Or is he choosing based on who he happens to come across in a vulnerable situation? Not vulnerable person; vulnerable situation. A sixteen-year-old who looks confident and alert to her surroundings, has a whistle visible on her keychain, etc., is in a less vulnerable situation than a hassled twenty-one-year-old who's loaded down with packages and wandering around looking for her car.
(had I found a good link for the article I would have posted it to give you all a little more detailed background.... but)
the girl was coming home from work, past midnight, on her usual roote, stoped and spoke to friends at a store, then got jacked a dissapeared (for 8 days without a trace)...
-police are saying that it's most likely someone who knows her
-knows her patterns (so stalking is not ruled out)
-there was no proof of struggle, no proof of assault or theft....
I would assume at this point that we could be looking at someone who has a taste for young women.(what a surprise)
that beeing said, I just don't think it's a good idea to post pictures of local girls(from the same class as the victim) in the media, seeing it as we don't know anything about the attackers "habits" or "preferences".
If you feel that you have no problem with your daughter posing for the news after the above circumstances...
...well I guess that'll be your perogative. 
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, and it would even safer if the media advised all girls ages 13-19 to wear burkas. That way, the murderer won't be able to see them even if they dare set their foot out the door and walk down the public street.
Seriously, is there ANY corolation between being kidnapped/murdered and appearing in local media?
Yep, good point.
Talking about disappearing girls... we have much much bigger problems in Canada. We put a child molester in jail. He spends 5 years there whacking to child porn posters on his wall, he gets paroled, he goes out and rapes a kid within 2 weeks of his release. Or another case. A guy who rapes and kills young girls goes to jail. While in jail, he gets his university degree, writes books and gets connections. He GETS RELEASED!!! Now he is much smarter and is much harder to catch. They allowed him to get a job NEAR KIDS (I think it was catholic school or smth). And the kids start to disappear, but the police cannot prove anything, since the guy is much smarter now and has connections. Now... do you see a problem with this? I think it is a much bigger one than girls in sexy dressed on front pages (not that I consider that a problem anyways ;-)
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 05:44 PM |
|
|
AND.... we, as tax payers, get to pay for it all!!! 
Those are all really good points Russ....
personally I've got no problems with the death penalty for a repeat offender....
(but that's a whole other problem!!)
this should be in my "advanced society" thread!!
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 06:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
AND.... we, as tax payers, get to pay for it all!!!
Hey, I think we also pay for Viagra for sex criminals
How's that for irony? 
I think this was debated a few months ago, as someone noticed this rather odd fact and wanted it to stop.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
AND.... we, as tax payers, get to pay for it all!!!
Those are all really good points Russ....
personally I've got no problems with the death penalty for a repeat offender....
(but that's a whole other problem!!)
this should be in my "advanced society" thread!!
Yeah, because murder is an extremely good sanction, right?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 07:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, because murder is an extremely good sanction, right?
uh oh!! Terje found us!!
so you think the death penalty for criminals (or in this case, repeat child molesters) is not warranted??
You think it's fair to have the hard workers of your country pay for room and board (and according to russ' arguments, education, etc) for it's criminals??
Personally I've got no issues with putting them down.
(actually im rather comfortable with it)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 07:11 PM |
|
|
I dunno, I just believe that even the worst criminals can somehow be rehabilitated and turned into productive members of society. However, I see pedophiles as sick people, who need treatment, so prison isn't where I'd sand them. More like an asylum, or something.
And in any case, when the state/government uses murder (the term "executions" is just newspeech) as a sanction against criminals, it does something to the minds of some people, you know? They see this as the government indirectly legitimizing murder, and then their "violence-threshold" is lowered.
The same, I might add, applies when the government uses violence (aka. war) as a solution to problems.
Not, of course, to mention that "eye for an eye" is a bloody barbaric custom...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 07:28 PM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 20 Sep 2005
|
Quote:
I dunno, I just believe that even the worst criminals can somehow be rehabilitated and turned into productive members of society. However, I see pedophiles as sick people, who need treatment, so prison isn't where I'd sand them. More like an asylum, or something.
then i guess the larger issue is how our penal systems work and how this is clearly not happening. (can refer to russ' good points to see what i mean)
(and I don't think the parents of a murdered or molested child would agree with you...)
Quote:
And in any case, when the state/government uses murder (the term "executions" is just newspeech) as a sanction against criminals, it does something to the minds of some people, you know? They see this as the government indirectly legitimizing murder, and then their "violence-threshold" is lowered.
Not, of course, to mention that "eye for an eye" is a bloody barbaric custom...
those are also good points... personally I believe that we're already "desensitized" to violence because it's always either on the news, or on tv, in another country or city... I also beleive that right now there's not much incentive to "rehabilitate" since you're out of jail in no time. The system isn't really teaching anyone anything except that you can either get away with it or get off with a shorter sentence.
And my stongest opinion is this:
I don't belive in "eye for an eye", I just believe that I shouldn't suffer (financially) by supporting you and all the others like you. (criminals that is )
(and talking barbaric, let's bring back public executions to scare people into beeing lawfull )
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 07:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I dunno, I just believe that even the worst criminals can somehow be rehabilitated and turned into productive members of society. However, I see pedophiles as sick people, who need treatment, so prison isn't where I'd sand them. More like an asylum, or something.
then i guess the larger issue is how our penal systems work and how this is clearly not happening. (can refer to russ' good points to see what i mean)
Yeah, I agree that penal systems don't work, but I don't believe that dehumanificating them (harsher penalties, cpaital punishment) does the trick. I'm more in favour of giving them longer sentences, but sentencing them to treatment, rather than death, or non-prductive rotting in some prison.
Quote:
(and I don't think the parents of a murdered or molested child would agree with you...)
Yeah, and do you know why not? It's for the same reason why we won't let the parents of murdered people sit on the jury of that murderer's trial.
Quote:
Quote:
And in any case, when the state/government uses murder (the term "executions" is just newspeech) as a sanction against criminals, it does something to the minds of some people, you know? They see this as the government indirectly legitimizing murder, and then their "violence-threshold" is lowered.
Not, of course, to mention that "eye for an eye" is a bloody barbaric custom...
those are also good points... personally I believe that we're already "desensitized" to violence because it's always either on the news, or on tv, in another country or city... I also beleive that right now there's not much incentive to "rehabilitate" since you're out of jail in no time. The system isn't really teaching anyone anything except that you can either get away with it or get off with a shorter sentence.
I think I said my views on this above.
Quote:
And my stongest opinion is this:
I don't belive in "eye for an eye", I just believe that I shouldn't suffer (financially) by supporting you and all the others like you. (criminals that is )
Ah, I see. So basically, you're in favour of killing these people, because that'd be more convenient for your personal economic situation? Tell me you don't mean this?
Quote:
(and talking barbaric, let's bring back public executions to scare people into beeing lawfull )
Hell yeah, if we're gonna do something, let's not just do it halfway! The people can't see how awful the criminal's death is when it happens behind closed oors!
Btw, I've forgotten an important argumant against capital punishment: Research has "proved" that 7% (or something like that) of the executed "criminals" were in fact innocent. If the justice systems were infallible, I'd have less beef with it. I'd still be opposed to it, but I'd be less opposed.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 07:45 PM |
|
|
Sure, 'eye for an eye' may seem barbaric, but it can work. Actually, just about any form of punishment would work if the rate of criminals caught and punished was in the 90-100% region. Picture this. You're considering robbing a shop or something. You really need the money. Now, would you be willing to do it if there was a 60% risk of sitting in prison for a while? Now, would you be willing to do it if there was an 80% risk of having your right thumb cut off?
Punishments should prevent the first crime through fear, not following ones through reeducation.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:04 PM |
|
|
Once again, we gotta start with the function of the punitive system.
The prisons aren't there to "cure" criminals. Usually you put in a burglar and get a bank robber out. Put in a guy for assault out comes a gang member, etc.
So, the prisons actually produce criminals.
The function of producing criminals in society is to create something for us to fear, because if everything is good, we wouldnt have to pay the government to govern us. The production of criminals creates something for us to fear to hide or at least diminish other wrongs in our world.
Also, the criminals are there to define "a good citizen" by the existance of something that is not a good citizen, that is, a criminal. Usually things are defined relative to its opposite. Dark and light, good and evil, wet and dry, criminal and good citizen.
So, if you want to abolish crime, the first step is to elect a government who actually has that as a goal. But usually people settle for pretend goals and theatre. As long as they have a nice time.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sure, 'eye for an eye' may seem barbaric, but it can work. Actually, just about any form of punishment would work if the rate of criminals caught and punished was in the 90-100% region. Picture this. You're considering robbing a shop or something. You really need the money. Now, would you be willing to do it if there was a 60% risk of sitting in prison for a while? Now, would you be willing to do it if there was an 80% risk of having your right thumb cut off?
Punishments should prevent the first crime through fear, not following ones through reeducation.
So, if you were a crimainal, you'd think it was OK if they punished you, not in proportion to what you actually did, but in proportion for what I or Jebus might someday do? That doesn't sound very fair, does it?
Anyway, I'm also concerned about crime prevention, but I see crime as a structural problem - it is there because somewhere in society's structure, there's something that forces people into crime. I'll expand on this.
This socioligist (whose name I of course can't remember) did some field studies amongst criminals in big American cities. His research showed that the kids who grew up to be criminals had no other way out of poverty. Their way into careers through education was blocked by worn-down schools, which lead them to make low grades. Also, if they somehow managed to get their good grades, they couldn't afford to get any higher education.
Their was into a career through work, was blocked by the fact that they didn't have any formal eductaion, as well as the fact that they came from neighbourhoods with disputable reputations. Not, of course, to mention that the only work they could get in their own neighbourhood, was minimum-wage jobs, with as good as no prospect of advancement.
So, as a result of this, their came to the conclusion that the only way they could get "respect", and perhaps more importantly, money to feed their families, was through crime.
Of course, this is research in the conflict perspective tradition, which is also known as Marxist sociological theory, and some of you might want to disagree with it just because of that. If you do, please excuse me for the mental comment "Fool...".
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, I agree that penal systems don't work, but I don't believe that dehumanification them (harsher penalties, capital punishment) does the trick. I'm more in favour of giving them longer sentences, but sentencing them to treatment, rather than death, or non-productive rotting in some prison.
Id agree with this if it meant letting them rot in their longer sentences…
You talk about dehumanizing someone but when you talk about repeat molesters, rapists or murderers, I don’t think what society does to “them” is what dehumanized them. They did it to themselves and I’m just trying to protect myself, my family and my community, so lock’em up.
Quote:
Yeah, and do you know why not? It's for the same reason why we won't let the parents of murdered people sit on the jury of that murderer's trial.
… and maybe they should have that right. It’ll be the only sense of satisfaction that that family will be entitled too! No sentence (with parole or rehab program) will make them feel that justice was served. And wouldn’t you be more hesitant to commit a crime if you knew that the persons you trespass against will be your jury in court??
Quote:
Ah, I see. So basically, you're in favour of killing these people, because that'd be more convenient for your personal economic situation? Tell me you don't mean this?
Freakin’ right I mean it! I don’t know what kind of criminals that YOU guys have that makes you all sympathetic to their rights, needs and feelings, but I’m very honest when I say that as a law abiding, tax paying citizen and soon to be father and husband, I’d have no remorse in sentencing someone who is guilty (and re-offended) of a serious crime. (I’m not talking about petty crime here either)
Until our system is set up where those who are doing the time are actually paying for it, I don’t feel it’s fair that society should pay for anything that supports someone who chose not to be a productive part of that society.
Quote:
Hell yeah, if we're gonna do something, let's not just do it halfway! The people can't see how awful the criminal's death is when it happens behind closed doors!
Then open those doors so that everyone (potential criminals and society’s members)
can see the reality of the crime and the punishment.
Quote:
Btw, I've forgotten an important argumant against capital punishment: Research has "proved" that 7% (or something like that) of the executed "criminals" were in fact innocent. If the justice systems were infallible, I'd have less beef with it. I'd still be opposed to it, but I'd be less opposed.
I would however only authorize the death penalty for a case that is undeniably solved and the TRUE offender identified.
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So, if you were a crimainal, you'd think it was OK if they punished you, not in proportion to what you actually did, but in proportion for what I or Jebus might someday do? That doesn't sound very fair, does it?
Look. Stuff like what is and what is not a crime ain't no secret. Everyone either knows or can know that. And so, if one commits a crime, they can expect a punishment. If they see that the crime is worth sitting out the punishment, then they will commit the crime. If we make the penalties more harsh, they are suddenly undeserved. Tell me - do we want to gently hint at the inapropriateness of certain deeds or do we want to prevent them?
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Russ
Promising
Supreme Hero
blah, blah, blah
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So, if you want to abolish crime, the first step is to elect a government who actually has that as a goal. But usually people settle for pretend goals and theatre. As long as they have a nice time.
Hmm... a very long post, yet not a single constructive comment. So, you want the big brother to do something about it, but you don't know what and how?. What exactly is your suggestion here? If you don't have a good one, then lets just stick with our imperfect system that works.
FYI: the prisons are NOT there to cure criminals. They are to isolate them from the rest of us and to punish them (this is why it is called "penal system"). Where did you get the idea of someone trying to cure them?
As for pedophiles - it is a fact that men like young girls, it is in our genetics. Young girls means high chance of healthy kids, so the mother nature put it in us. So, some form of pedophilia is existent in all of us. (I am not talking about 10-yr olds here, btw!!!) Come to think of it - they should lower the age of consent to 16-17 But that's another topic. However, those who go on and rape kids are violent criminals. They have a criminal mindset and they are a danger to society. They can not be helped. Whether they were born with it, or whether they had a bad childhood, it is already too late. The only thing we can do is put them behind bars and separate them from us to prevent them from doing any more harm.
Killing them would work too - this is how Romans saved a lot of money  Instead of feeding them and educating them they put them in the arena to fight to the death. But there is 1 big argument I have against the capital punishment: some people accused of a crime are innocent. If you kill an innocent person, and later find out he was innocent, it will be too late.
Non-violent criminals (like theives, burglars, embezzlers, etc) on the other hand should be separated from the violent ones, as those can actually rehabilitated if you teach them a better way of making a living.
|
|
Jebus
Promising
Supreme Hero
TheJester akaJeebs akaJebfoo
|
|
posted September 20, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
Edited By: Jebus on 20 Sep 2005
|
Quote:
Killing them would work too - this is how Romans saved a lot of money Instead of feeding them and educating them they put them in the arena to fight to the death. But there is 1 big argument I have against the capital punishment: some people accused of a crime are innocent. If you kill an innocent person, and later find out he was innocent, it will be too late.
FINALLY!!
and for that one guy who got screwed the term:
"taking it for the team" comes to mind!
Quote:
Non-violent criminals (like theives, burglars, embezzlers, etc) on the other hand should be separated from the violent ones, as those can actually rehabilitated if you teach them a better way of making a living.
I think I was trying to get that accross earlier... but who knows if I succeeded.
terje,
I understand that some crimes are "crimes of necessity"
but this debate didn't start with those examples...
Im not saying kill them all! But like i said, I'd rather put a child molester down before he gets out and gets to strike again...
(and after all your arguments on cost, society's responsibility towards their criminals and rehab, Ill be sure to send you the bill for the jail time and send them to live in YOUR community when they finally do get out! hopefully you'll still have money left to feed them.)
____________
"You went over my helmet??"
|
| |
|
|
