Ahhh! Now THIS is something that should get your attention! Why are we all killing each other? What can we do to stop it?
With the exception of the fireman, none of the things you’ve listed are like Peterson case. The key is that the Peterson case is nothing new: Husbands kill wives. Always have, always will. It doesn’t affect me. Firemen have dangerous jobs. Sometimes they get killed. It’s not new, and it’s not news to anyone but those who knew him. It doesn’t affect me. Both the Peterson case and the fireman are the status quo.
Do I feel for the victims in the Peterson case? Do I feel bad that a fireman died? No worse then I feel for the other 7,000 or so Americans who died the same day. I have enough people in my life to empathise over without letting my heart bleed for complete strangers. They have their own community to do that, and I’m not in it.
If one man kills his wife, it’s not news. If enough men kill their wives so that the difference between this year and the last is statistically significant, that’s news.
I would rather have more news coverage about the long-term impacts of the latest government policies to come out of Washington DC than about any celebrity being accused of rape or the details of any gruesome murder victim.
The former has a definite, long-term impact on me and my family; the latter are mere voyeurism.
There is not a reason in the world why you should care. But you do have to accustom yourself to the fact that a lot of other people do care about the Murder of the Moment, and not get yourself into such a tizzy over that.
Who the hell says you have to become emotionally involved? Or pay attention to the media? Not getting involved emotionally doesn’t make you heartless. Being willing to say “fuck you” to a murder victim because you’re tired of the media coverage-that’s probably not the sign of someone just bursting with heart.
Just because I pit something doesn’t mean I’m in a “tizzy” over it. Unfortunately, I’m long accustomed to the fact that people care a lot about the Murder of the Moment, but that doesn’t mean I can’t bemoan the media coverage every once in a while.
Well, she was the only woman murdered in the last 3 years who you singled out to vent your frustration on.
Translation: You’re the one who brought it up. Now you have to deal with those of us who do care.
And, just so you know, you do seem to be an awful prick the way you worded your OP. This is coming from someone who does not watch network news all night long and isn’t steeped in the “minute details” of this case.
By the way, it’s “couldn’t care less”, goddammit!
You must be an amazing psychologist. Your ability to make a judgment about me based on one rant, and my retraction of a phrase, is truly stunning. How much do you charge for this service? Perhaps I might make an innocuous post about Bush and you can make a judgment about my fiscal responsibility?
That’s quite interesting, cmason32. You’re willing to judge millions of people on the basis of what appears in the media, like so…
Yet when I imply you might be something less than a saint, I’m making snap judgments about you based on one detail. And here I thought I was taking the high road when I didn’t say you were a stupid, judgmental prick who’s too lazy to change the goddamned channel.
you could start by not pissing me off when I’ve not had my coffee yet.
( 
)
Perhaps my initial post was too harsh, but I think the point still remains the same. The media sensationalizes this stuff and I think a great deal of that has to do with the fact that people choose to content themselves with tabloid news that doesn’t really make a difference in their lives. If they instead focused their energies on things that did matter, we might not have an apathetic voting base that doesn’t even understand rudimentary poltical issues.
IMO, there is a time and place for sensational stories - and that place should be US weekly, People Magazine, Extra!, and other such media services. If I turn on the news, I expect news and not the Murder of the Moment. I do change the channel when such drivel comes on - I don’t think that precludes me from arguing that this stuff isn’t newsworthy.
Someone earlier brought up 9/11 and I think it underscores my point. Before 9/11 the public was obsessed with Condit. Now, there’s no doubt that 9/11 was an event of such monumental proportions that it’s importance would be hard to understate. However, I think it also demonstrated of how little importance was the Condit story. Maybe if we had spent more time on learning about the rest of the world and how our interactions affected people in other countries, we might be in a better position to understand the complexities that are involved in our foreign policy.
Yeah . . . That’s gonna happen.
How about a swivet? Can he get himself into a swivet? Oh, how I yearn for a swivet…
Anyhoo, while going ballistic over the media coverage is (heh) overkill, I have no problem with challenging people about why they care so much about it that they buy the magazines and the books and watch the TV shows and generally support the industry that keeps a non-story like this on the front burner for a year.
One can hope … can’t they?
Thanks for clarifying cmason32. I definately agree with you in principle. There’s news and there’s fluff and it’s annoying when one treads on the other. Problem is that sometimes it’s hard to say just where you draw the line. In Condit’s case he was an elected official and his decisions were possibly going to affect more than a few. But Jon Benet and O.J. and some of the others were just inexcusable.
I didn’t follow the Condit story, but didn’t they determine that he didn’t do it? I thought I heard something about a mugger in a park or something like that. If that is the case, then people harassed this man and spent months debating this case when he didn’t even have anything to do with it.
Actually, there are factors and consequences in this case that could very well affect the rest of us, like the ways the laws and politicians have, and will, deal with the issue of the, er, violent terminating of the victim’s pregnancy.
That alone to me suggests that it should get at least a little more attention than your run-of-the-mill murder. Also remember that most of the attention to this case came when the victim was only missing - having just come off a spate of highly publicized kidnappings, that’s at least somewhat understandable.
Note the wording of the Poll= “who believe” not “who has been convinced there is evidence that…” or “there is proof that…”. True, we have no evidence that SH was involved in 9-11. But- he is certainly the sort of evil bastard that could have done so, and woudl have done so. Thus a “belief” that he might have done so isn’t crazy- as long as you know there isn’t much in the way of evidence he was significantly involved.
About the Laci killing- the prosecution is hanging their case on a hair- one hair- on a pair of pliers in the boat. Like, Laci was never in her OWN HUSBANDs boat?:rolleyes: :dubious: What their evidence really is "he was a cheating husband, and we don’t have anyone else for it, so he must have done it- besides the crime is so horrible you have to convict somebody ". They do that a lot- juries are well known to often convict dudes accussed of really horrible crimes based upon trivial evidence. And, if it gets a lot of media attention, they HAVE to pin it on someone.
What I am tired of hearing about is the fucking Koby Bryant rape case. At least the Laci case is a heinous crime and sorta local.
“Why do I keep seeing this 70% thing all over.”
Probably because on almost any given question:
20% actually have an opinion and voice it
30% believe whatever they saw on TV said this morning
20% will tell the pollsters anything to get them to fuck off
So ask a question. Any question.
- PW