All my comment revolves around how he needed help and didn’t got it before it was too late.
I am mentally ill myself, you never stop being depressive and the mental and personal scars of the disease are a part of who I am. But after years of therapy and building a kind of normal life on the wreck I was between 17 and 30, now I would look for help and would get it if I needed it.
And just accidentally, nobody in his mind in my country would consider me an appropriate candidate to own a firearm. Not that I miss it…
Except it’s not objectively stated. The only reason it’s in that article is to drive the clicks up. In objective reporting it has no business being there since it doesn’t add anything to the topic at hand.
Well, it is not someones opinion, its a fact he had autism. So its objective.
Nobody claims that all autists are murderers.
Also why there are images of a white male. Should they be removed because its stigmatizing? Its a fact he was white. And he was a male who murdered a woman. His own sister.
Everyone should report whole truth and that is what I want from media.
I already explained to you above why that is problematic… If you still can’t see the problem, despite me pointing it out directly, then I have nothing further to add at this point.
Of course some clever people could just grab a red pen and censor everything that comes out to public, steering masses in the right direction, but I think people will see a message that is important. Gun, shooting relatives, family. Lets see what doesnt fit there. Gun and shooting. Shooting is made with a gun. Enough from me on that.
You just perfectly described modern media. Except they’re not actually censoring much, they instead present it in a different light or add totally unrelated attributes to get the reader to draw conclusions.
The Wall Street Journal, for example, is writing a lot of critical pieces about Google and Amazon. They do deserve a lot of that, but certainly not everything and the articles are very biased at times. Now if you consider that Rupert Murdoch, who is known for his very negative opinion against those two companies, owns the WSJ, you’ll quickly figure out what’s the real agenda behind those articles.
Opinions of readers are always something entirely different. Story is one, people who think about story is something different. If you give some objective stuff, people will form subjective opinions. Cant be helped really.
We cant know how irrelevant they are. Maybe story will have continuation where the omitted thing is crucial. So they are up for discussion. Controversial is best. You know how it works. You really want a change, just change a news site.
We can and we do. It’s just that objective articles garner much fewer clicks, and thus create less ad revenue, than subjective articles. That’s also what the whole fake news thing is about. Write an article about a polarizing topic and watch the money flow. The end result are junk sites like the one you just linked.
Well, whole idea of alternative media is about things that never come around in mainstream message. People want to know, no matter how much that information will fit them. Curiosity. That is why I visit sites with outrageos theories, watch videos of people talking about UFO and aliens.
People want their bias confirmed, not more. That’s why Facebook is a massive, personalized filter bubble and Google search results are individually tailored to the user. Drives up engagement, which in turn drives up revenue.
Oh, but then pesky smart guys can still write in a way that what is not said or can be read between the lines matters more than what it’s said. Reading what is being omitted and what is just hinted it’s an art in countries that suffered (or suffer) censorship.
We just have to find balance between both. Individuality and massive. Its every person at the end of this network. Even when the stuff in it is the same for everyone we have so much different opinions. Censoring is not a method too. If you want them to not push red button, they will push it. Like every Eden is destroyed when people move in. Just like in EVE.
OK, there’s something I dislike more than useless gadgets, and it’s poorly conceived useless gadgets! Just look at this crap and all the awkward postures it causes to the feet:
Yeah, standing on the heels with your fingers bent up, a very natural position! Surely your ankle won’t feel it! And running on your fingertips without resting the heels, that surely will be awesome for your feet, ankles and knees!
