Posts
Spencer Snyder discusses the media's coverage of mass shootings and urges the adoption of a code of restraint designed to curate the narrative and reduce the chances of copycat crimes.
Chipster thinks it's a bad idea. I don't doubt the existence of a contagion effect, but I am more concerned with a shadowy claque of self-appointed sociologists issuing "do's" and "dont's" about what to report in order to promote some selected "social good" (as determined by the same elite cliques). That is bad enough because it a priori reduces journalism to narrative and mind control. But it gets worse in so far as "social good" inevitably slides into political advantage. Take for example Saint Jacinda the Mournful's suppression of Tarant's "manifesto." She was opposed to his "hateful ideology" and did not want it broadcast. Not only did people not have a right to know what was in the shooter's mind, the NZ government actually prosecuted a kid for the crime of downloading it. If Spencer can find the line between preventing contagion and censoring speech, I'd like to hear it. Flash forward to last week. Our shadow "inner party" has suppressed Aubrey's "manifesto" .... why? To "prevent contagion" or to insulate and protect a trans-gender ideology from being besmirched by the action's of a lunatic?
Fact is a free press is the price we have to pay for having a free press. :)
©
