4 ms·

I can't really parse out what your point is. So I'll just pull a quote, and forgive me if I'm being simplistic but I think this alone shows that you're undermin

I can't really parse out what your point is. So I'll just pull a quote, and forgive me if I'm being simplistic but I think this alone shows that you're undermining the intelligence of the private citizen. > 99.9% of us will never have expertise

Terr_ 11y ago
This is not about "the innate capacity of man" or any such romantic business. It's about: 1. Of the entire audience being catered-to, almost none of them will have the inclination/money/time to become meaningful experts in violent mass-shootings. 2. The kind of information crafted by the mass-media is too low-quality to assist anybody towards that goal anyway. 3. People who are interested or competent in the field will instead acquire their data through entirely different mechanisms anyway. 4. The mass-media coverage is actually counter-productive to the goal of competence. In the search for filler, it is increasingly likely to host terrible "experts" or to portray news-anchors as experts. Among viewers, it creates "armchair experts" after 5 minutes, instilling them with a false sense of competence. 5. Finally, the popular style of mass-media coverage harms society in general, through encouraging additional unstable individuals to act.
- williamle8300 11y ago
  Nah man. You're a person... I'm a person. It's elementary. We can always understand, and it seems like you're insulting the intelligence of the public talking like you do. Being informed is almost always better.
  - anthropomorph 11y ago
    How is it useful for you, or anyone, to know the name and face of a mass killer? It's not like you can predict how likely it is someone will murder you based on how they look or what they're called. The point is that media is making mass killers into celebrities and that encourages more sick (read depressed, lonely) people to perform acts like this.

Terr_ 11y ago

This is not about "the innate capacity of man" or any such romantic business. It's about: 1. Of the entire audience being catered-to, almost none of them will have the inclination/money/time to become meaningful experts in violent mass-shootings. 2. The kind of information crafted by the mass-media is too low-quality to assist anybody towards that goal anyway. 3. People who are interested or competent in the field will instead acquire their data through entirely different mechanisms anyway. 4. The mass-media coverage is actually counter-productive to the goal of competence. In the search for filler, it is increasingly likely to host terrible "experts" or to portray news-anchors as experts. Among viewers, it creates "armchair experts" after 5 minutes, instilling them with a false sense of competence. 5. Finally, the popular style of mass-media coverage harms society in general, through encouraging additional unstable individuals to act.

williamle8300 11y ago
Nah man. You're a person... I'm a person. It's elementary. We can always understand, and it seems like you're insulting the intelligence of the public talking like you do. Being informed is almost always better.
- anthropomorph 11y ago
  How is it useful for you, or anyone, to know the name and face of a mass killer? It's not like you can predict how likely it is someone will murder you based on how they look or what they're called. The point is that media is making mass killers into celebrities and that encourages more sick (read depressed, lonely) people to perform acts like this.