I must have missed the conversation on the solutions.. ;-) I think that it has to be more than just "citizen media" making the changes though. For one because you will have a segment of the population who does not trust "real" news people. I know most on this list would find that hard to believe but it is true. But I do agree the best thing we can do to "force" change is to call out things like this. To not watch the programs and to stand up. Which I know most if not all on this list do.....we just have to get the rest of the world to change as well.... ;-)
Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In [email protected], Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I'm sure no one thinks you do agree with what they've done, > Heath. Totally understand your questioning, and you're right to. > You said first of all, though, that you didn't think we provided > solutions, we just complained about how bad MSM was - and I don't > think that's right - I think we talk about the solutions non- stop. > And, my own opinion, there are no solutions to it in the pre- internet > market. The solution *is* the internet and on-demand media. > > But now I'm repeating myself for like the twelfth time, so I'll shut up. > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 23:34, Heath wrote: > > For the record I don't agree with what the MSM has done and in > paticular in deceiding to air the video....I was merely wanting to > know "how" we can change things and how "we" can make a differance. > > To be able to discuss things we have to look at multiples angles, > talk through situtions.....I think those things are important, it's > the only way to counter ignorance, IMO... > > Heath > http://batmangeek.com > > --- In [email protected], "missbhavens1969" > <missbhavens1969@> wrote: > > > > Absolutely positively no fucking way would I air those videos. There > > was no reason -- NONE -- none other than ratings and the thrill of > > exclusivity for NBC to do so. Watching them gains us nothing. There > is > > nothing useful in them. The shooter is dead, and really, what else > do > > we need to know? It's beyond obvious he was mentally ill, do we need > > to see video proof, too? Oh, wait. Yes we do. Because the American > > television audience is as voyeuristic as they come. Forget that NBC > > has played into the shooters hands. This is exactly what he wanted, > > and he got it. He didn't mail the box to police, he mailed it to a > > television station. Now every angry, dejected, hateful, sullen kid > who > > dreams of blowing away the school gets to see it, too. He wanted to > be > > a martyr and to a small dangerous set, he is. > > > > Those tapes should have been held for a certain period of time, so > > that authorities (whoever they are) could glean from them whatever > > they needed, and then available to anyone closely related to the > > tragedy should they wish to see them. Families, friends, counselors. > > > > It wasn't wrong for NBC to edit those videos, it was wrong of them > to > > air to air them and to air them so quickly. > > > > It speaks volumes that families booked on The Today Show have > > cancelled their appearances because of the handling of the video. > Now > > NBC has backpedaled and say they're going to be more careful about > the > > remaining footage that they show. Too little too late. > > > > I'm disgusted by what NBC has done, and I find the idea that "well, > of > > course NBC had to air the videos" repellent. > > > > Bekah > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe I missed it but I still have not seem anyone say how they > would > > > have covered it. I only see and hear people saying how the MSM > is > > > covering it is wrong. So I ask out to the group, you are the > news > > > director you have the ablilty to shape how this story is told, > how do > > > you do that? > > > > > > I am not trying to defend MSM, what I am asking is "how" we do it > > > differently, how do you balance it. Or any story for that > matter. > > > > > > you mentioned my comment on the right to know vs privacy, I was > > > speaking in general terms and not to this paticular incident. I > have > > > no idea how I would feel, maybe I would want to tell people about > my > > > son or daughter, maybe I would retreat into myself, I simply do > not > > > know. > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Heath, > > > > I guess my last post covered some of what you're asking here, > but > > > I'm > > > > going to reply anyway. > > > > > > > > "And as far as the mainstream media's coverage, what should > they do? > > > > How should they cover it?" > > > > You're right - at the moment, this is the only way they can > > > satisfy > > > > their shareholders and funders. It's their way of attracting > the > > > > largest number of people. How they *should* cover it, if you > were > > > to > > > > prioritize humanity, morals, intelligence and making the world > a > > > > better place, is a different matter. > > > > > > > > "It's always a fine line between the right to know and privacy." > > > > In reference to this particular case, I really think you'd have > a > > > > hard time delivering this line to a victim of this massacre, or > of > > > > any copycat massacre. > > > > > > > > "I hear a lot of people on this list bash the MSM but I see > very > > > few > > > > answers or way to "solve" the issues that they see. How can we > > > expect > > > > anything better if we can't, won't or don't know a better way?" > > > > That's *all* we talk about, even obliquely, I reckon. The > > > technology > > > > we're pioneering here *is* the solution. We *are* the better > > > way. > > > > As I said in my last post, I think things will change as a > result > > > of > > > > the economic threat to MSM bullshit that's presented by the > > > internet > > > > and on-demand media easily accessed from the couch & TV. When > > > > there's no limit on channels and *everyone* can compete, the > media > > > > will want to reach out to a whole bunch of niche audiences that > > > they > > > > couldn't afford to bother with before. > > > > > > > > "And who says what is better or not better? We all come from > > > > different backgrounds, belief's, etc. It's a balancing act, > always > > > > has been." > > > > Deep down, we all know what's better. We know when we're > buying > > > into > > > > prurient not-public-interest press crap and watching/reading > what > > > > they want us to watch because it's too hard to do anything > else. > > > > When we consume our media differently, when there's no limits > on > > > > distribution and so no limit to choice of product, we'll choose > a > > > lot > > > > more of the Good stuff, instead of the stuff that's only there > > > > because of the imperative to maximize the shareholders' ROI. > > > > > > > > Rupert > > > > http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/ > > > > http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/ > > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > On 19 Apr 2007, at 15:59, Heath wrote: > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
