this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
638 points (96.5% liked)

politics

18888 readers
4002 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 261 points 2 months ago (7 children)

the media:

we'll stop naming school shooters due to copycat killers

also the media:

his name was thomas matthew and here's a 90 minute special about his preferred breakfast cereal

👀 👀 👀

[–] David_Eight 109 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If this encourages these psychos to stop shooting children and shoot politicians instead, I'll take that trade.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'll say the name of anyone that takes a shot at a fascist, for any reason. Even being the wrong kind of fascist.

[–] njm1314 2 points 2 months ago

I've always said we need a Walter Audisio day as a national holiday.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Like the guy who liked Hitler.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago

you know what, fuck yeah. People can only afford so many bullets these days, so just like Halloween warnings avout drugs and the reality of who the fuck would waste their hard earned drug money on random kids, why should anyone waste bullet money on them either. shoot a politician, save a child.

[–] newthrowaway20 98 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Did the media ever really say they'd stop naming school shooters??

[–] atx_aquarian 88 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Also, I'm told this wasn't a school shooting.

[–] HappycamperNZ 6 points 2 months ago

I know of one who should have been in school

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The media is not one thing. Media is plural. Good luck getting "the media" to agree on anything.

[–] pivot_root 38 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They sure can agree on a few things:

  • Ads make money.
  • More ads make more money.
  • Money.
  • More money.
  • 🦀 money money money 🦀
[–] JayleneSlide 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But are they concerned with making money? 😁

[–] pivot_root 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If they're privately held, yes.
If they're publicly traded, yes.
If they're publicly funded, also yes, but only because they wouldn't exist otherwise.

Even if they don't say it, it's always a priority :)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are several large nonprofit media corporations such as NPR.

[–] aidan 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yet I feel like every time I listen to them they're basically running an ad for a movie/TV show/book through a fluff interview with someone who worked on it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But there is no incentive to get more money than they need to operate, because the shareholders and board don't profit from it personally. NPR income is spent over 92% on program funding and 7% on administrative.

It's basically run the same way as Wikipedia. If enough people donated, there would be no ads at all.

[–] aidan 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They run programming that they suspect will get them money, either through donations or government funding- because for those working to get raises the organization needs to have money. (As well as other reasons of course)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement? Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?

[–] aidan 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You’re accusing a highly respected and frequently audited charity of embezzlement?

No? I never said anything about embezzlement.

Or you think from their public documents that they pay their employees too much?

I also never said that.

Here's an example:

If you work for a public park, you're probably going to support more money for the park for a lot of reasons, but here are just a few:

  1. the park may be able to afford to pay you more.

  2. the park may be able to afford hiring more people making your job easier.

  3. you likely care about the park to some extent and want other people to enjoy it.

  4. you want where you work and spend your time to be liked.

  5. you are less likely to be at risk of losing your job.

None of those things are embezzlement or suggest you're overpaid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That hypothetical isn't placing profit first, at all.

[–] aidan 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Then why even apply an anecdote in reply to my fact to start with? I think we're done here.

[–] aidan 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

What? I don't think you understood what I said, please reread it.

  1. It was teasing

  2. I said there is a income motive

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There very clearly isn't an income motive. The organization is following their clearly stated goals of providing news and reporting to the american people. Their documents prove that.

[–] aidan 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Why do they ask member stations to contribute financially then? And ask for funding

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

I vaguely remember a pinky swear.

[–] njm1314 1 points 2 months ago

For like 2 weeks and they went back to it

[–] Gradually_Adjusting 27 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Wish.com Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot up a school though

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I guess they made the call that releasing this information is the lesser of two evils, the other one being to withhold it and to let speculation run wild in a heated political climate, in which one side is not shy about threats of violence.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

Who ever kills Trump will get an entire movie about them.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Noticed this too. They just plaster his face and have analysis and stories all over youtube and news. I thought US are already over this yet here we are.

[–] RampantParanoia2365 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, wouldn't that be a crying shame, this time.