Amish school massacre -- a "number" of people dead

[Tingkai]

You're the one making the claim so the onus is on you to back up your statement.

Besides, you're asking me to prove that the crimes did not take place. That's impossible.

I have pointed out that while many people in North America think that crimes is getting worse, crime rates have actually fallen. So your claim that copy cat crimes are numerous may well be part of the false perception.

That's why you need to provide fact to back up your claims.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Okay. Your previous message was vague.

Again, you blame the media without providing any facts to support your statement.

Rich, coming from you.

[Tingkai]

Another worthless comment from Kuci.

Originally posted by Sikander
I'm asking for good judgement and good citizenship to be practised. Tingai doesn't seem to think that's possible.

I didn't say good judgement and good citizenship is impossible. What I said is that editors often question whether there has been overkill of a story within our particular medium, but what we cannot do is make judgements based on what the entire industry has done and may do.

And even as editors look at their own coverage, they face the subjective question of how much is too much? How much coverage is appropriate? These are question no one can answer so for you to say that there is too much coverage, doesn't say much.

[Wezil]

How about not publishing the name of the shooter Tingkai? Can you support that?

[Vince278]

Oh, who cares?!? If nobody is going to stay on topic we can close this thread and move the gun control BS to its own thread (any takers?) so it gets the attention it deserves (none ).

Sorry, but to me this is a local story...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Vince278
Sorry, but to me this is a local story...

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Wezil
How about not publishing the name of the shooter Tingkai? Can you support that?

And the point of that would be?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
And even as editors look at their own coverage, they face the subjective question of how much is too much? How much coverage is appropriate? These are question no one can answer so for you to say that there is too much coverage, doesn't say much.

I don't think people at CNN, or other 24 hour a day 'must have news' channels are asking these questions.

[Dr Strangelove]

You have to admire the Amish people for the compassion they showed to Robert's widow. That's truly Christian practice.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't think people at CNN, or other 24 hour a day 'must have news' channels are asking these questions.

CNN would face similar questions.

When something like 9/11 happens, that is going to get a vast majority of airtime. But at some point, the coverage has to decrease. So the producers at CNN are discussing when is enough, enough.

The major difference between print and TV is that TV is driven by video images. So something like the beauty contestant kid who was murdered in the states got lots of coverage on CNN simply because CNN has access to videotape of those beauty contests. If there are no videos, there is far less coverage.

But video or no video, we still come back to the subjective question of when is enough, enough.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
But video or no video, we still come back to the subjective question of when is enough, enough.

And cable news networks are proving to be incapable of answering that question.

[Tingkai]

Uhm, they do answer it, but their opinion is different from yours, and neither can be said to be right or wrong. It's subjective.

[notyoueither]

What isn't subjective is the same story repeated every 15 minutes on and on for hours until the public is bludgeoned into unconciousness or another story breaks.

That is observable.

[Tingkai]

Sometimes I agree that there is too much coverage. CNN went overboard in my opinion on the arrest of that guy who claimed he murdered that beauty contest kid. So I turned the channel to BBC World.

But when 9/11 happened do you think there should only have been one story? At what point was there too much coverage?

[notyoueither]

Right. One event out of 20 years that will shape our times. Use that to justify endless coverage of the sensational, and the endless reporting of the most minute details they can get their hands on.