What I saw of the Buffalo coverage was mostly this, though. I didn't see his name or face in the coverage I read, only the victims'. I had to actually dig a bit to find his name for the post I made above because it wasn't even in several articles. The racial motivation is a story about the all-black victims, too. So, when covering them, it is going to come up. So, show me what you mean by bad coverage of the perpetrator.
-
You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
I'm not going to link a bunch of articles that go exactly against what I am preaching. But, the above lists how they should appear and there are plenty out there, including LA Times, NYT etc that do not follow that protocol.
If you are finding that it is harder to get the sordid details of the perpetrator than in the past, that is a good thing and maybe the media is finally waking up.
If you are finding that it is harder to get the sordid details of the perpetrator than in the past, that is a good thing and maybe the media is finally waking up.
I agree with the protocols you posted above. What I'm having a hard time with is understanding how they weren't followed for Buffalo. The worst I saw was a story about people from the shooter's hometown, where his name still wasn't in the headline. That said, I don't read the click bait sites like CNN and maybe it's worse there. They currently have a Frontpage headline about the Uvalde shooter.
The challenge with Buffalo, Charleston, El Paso, Tree of Life, etc. is the application of the protocol gets blurry when you should regularly acknowledge the motive when discussing victims, including how hate crimes affect the entire neighborhood. For example, the lingering effects for the survivors of the Charleston AME church shooting included that they heard the shooter yelling "you rape our women". Covering that is victim focused, but seems to go against what the linked video was suggesting because you can't cover that quote or its effects without context about racist stereotypes and conspiracy theories. Do you cover victims' quotes like "he tried to start a race war, but he failed"? That was paraphrasing a quote from a family member of a victim at a press conference where the family wanted to speak.
The challenge with Buffalo, Charleston, El Paso, Tree of Life, etc. is the application of the protocol gets blurry when you should regularly acknowledge the motive when discussing victims, including how hate crimes affect the entire neighborhood. For example, the lingering effects for the survivors of the Charleston AME church shooting included that they heard the shooter yelling "you rape our women". Covering that is victim focused, but seems to go against what the linked video was suggesting because you can't cover that quote or its effects without context about racist stereotypes and conspiracy theories. Do you cover victims' quotes like "he tried to start a race war, but he failed"? That was paraphrasing a quote from a family member of a victim at a press conference where the family wanted to speak.
Please don't take offense, but you are sounding like my patients that have been sedentary and done hardly any exercise in a decade and they start asking me "Is it better if I do 8 reps and 4 sets or 10 reps and 3 sets" or "which pre-workout drink do you think I should use."
I think we are at the point where we try to follow the guidelines generally. If in several years this is widely followed then sorting the details makes more sense.
As far as finding coverage, I just googled his name and saw on the first page an article with a large pic of him and other articles with his name in the headline.
Here, just one example. Why do we need this type of detail about his existence? It is crack cocaine for a copycat.
I think we are at the point where we try to follow the guidelines generally. If in several years this is widely followed then sorting the details makes more sense.
As far as finding coverage, I just googled his name and saw on the first page an article with a large pic of him and other articles with his name in the headline.
Here, just one example. Why do we need this type of detail about his existence? It is crack cocaine for a copycat.
Democrats shoot down Republican bill as I stated they would yesterday
Schumer blocks Senate GOP school safety bill, angering Republicans
Schumer blocks Senate GOP school safety bill, angering Republicans
What I had seen is that the school resource officer (that is the label they gave him, but they are saying he had a gun so basically a security guard) tried to stop him outside and was not able too. It looks like he lost his backpack full of ammo during this confrontation though and it shows it sitting there in the pictures. Those pictures also look to show blood on the concrete but not sure if that is from that confrontation.
Anyone have a subscription to WSJ? I really want to read this article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/uvalde-residents-voice-frustration-over-shooting-response-11653588161
https://www.wsj.com/articles/uvalde-residents-voice-frustration-over-shooting-response-11653588161
I agree the piece from El País is bad and that makes sense. It’s also El País and not an outlet most of us would come across. It's fairly straightforward though and the video that started this made it seem like that piece was a large chunk of media coverage. I haven't seen it at all to that degree. Googling the name like you did, I came away with a different impression. First, there are several places that violate those protocols, but to highly variable degrees. Interestingly enough, Fox News and New York Post seem to be the worst violators with multiple articles about the shooter all using his name in the headline. CNN, USA Today, and a few other outlets seem to have single "what we know articles" that use his name. There were also several outlets that appeared to follow your recommendations (NPR, ABC, and maybe CBS). Those seem mostly straightforward.
Many of the others seem to be more similar to the blurry scenarios I presented. As examples, WaPo has an article about people seeming to log into a chatroom where they could watch the shooting. They have another article about his radicalization. Then, there are still the other questions that based on the video that started this all and to some extent your recommendations.
Finally, as a general rule, let's not compare each other to patients, especially ones we seem to have contempt for. You aren't alone in being able to do that and it's not productive.
Many of the others seem to be more similar to the blurry scenarios I presented. As examples, WaPo has an article about people seeming to log into a chatroom where they could watch the shooting. They have another article about his radicalization. Then, there are still the other questions that based on the video that started this all and to some extent your recommendations.
Finally, as a general rule, let's not compare each other to patients, especially ones we seem to have contempt for. You aren't alone in being able to do that and it's not productive.