Someone riddle me this...

[Stinger911]

Why is it that footage of Osama Bin Laden's dead body was censored from the US airwaves because it would "inflame the Muslim world"... and yet...

Yesterday, the news networks ran 24/7 coverage of an average black man with a punctured lung bleeding all over the place and wheezing for air?

Clearly, if we look at Dallas, this shooting and the Baton Rouge shooting "inflamed the black community" (or more precisely, the ghetto black thug community) to the point that officers are now dead from retaliatory attacks.

Why is it that the news won't show us the bodies of our declared enemies but will gleefully show dead black men getting shot by police at the first opportunity?

At the very least, there is a double standard at work, and if you wander into the land of conspiracy theories, the white cop vs black citizen footage is shoved down our throats at every opportunity to purposely inflame racial tension.

Either we should see EVERYTHING -- dead terrorists and dead citizens -- or we should see nothing. No dead terrorist footage, no cellphone footage of cop shootings.

As far as I'm concerned, the news networks now have blood on their hands. 4 cops dead, 11 shot in Dallas, in a city and state the other shootings didn't even occur in. I hope the sensationalism, race baiting, and ratings were worth it.

 

[Rygu]

The army is a little better at this shit than the police or media.

 

[Deleted member 185048]

Wasn't the bin Laden's footage video taped by the government ?

As opposed to a random person video taping the murder a few days ago?

My point is the media could easily get a hold of the footage of the black guy because some random dude taped it. It's not like the government could have chose to hide the black guy murder video if they wanted to. If the media got a hold of the bin Laden video I'm certain they would play it over and over. The media will do whatever gives them the most viewers.

 

[MiniCraque]

Head cam footage from special ops

vs

liveleak.com

Totally the same thing bro.

 

[sloppypie]

i have to say that the news really does fuel a lot of the animosity that is going on. it started with trayvon martin and they saw the kind of ratings they got from pushing that. when i saw they were showing the video of that poor fuckin guy dying, it was the most appalling thing i may have ever seen professional news show on tv.

that guy isn't a fucking prop for a reality tv show, we don't need to see victims and live action death in front of us. it doesn't just degrade the news networks, it degrades us as society as a bunch of zombie citizens obsessed with the worst things in the world.

i think the FCC should fine any network that showed it heavily. it's utterly ridiculous. we already have the internet if people really want to look for it themselves. next we are going to see people filling up coliseums to watch men being executed by wild animals like back in the roman days.

we really haven't changed that much as a species. better technology and some improved social norms, but we are still the same bloodthirsty mob. and we are just more sophisticated at lying to ourselves about it now.

 

[Stinger911]

Head cam footage from special ops

vs

liveleak.com

Totally the same thing bro.

If the government cared to, they could enact legislation to make broadcasting inflammatory video illegal. There are already hate speech laws in place. Any video that could be used to propagandize a political movement (like Black Lives Matter) or incite violence could be banned.

This wouldn't stop rogue internet bloggers, but it would decrease the visibility of these incidents at least.

Some of these police shootings do seem unjustified to me, but media outlets pounce on these incidents like dogs on a bone. They are quite literally fanning the flame of tragedy for profit, even if it gets other people killed. I'm all for freedom of the press, but I believe that running round the clock coverage of graphic violence of this sort (dead guy with punctured lung) is both vulgar and unethical.

The cops should be investigated, and if the investigations are biased, there needs to be a third party panel to adjudicate a verdict. What we don't need are thug vigilantes deluded into thinking they're martyrs because CNN and Fox News chose to run the 1 shooting of a black man at the hands of a cop that month while ignoring the daily black on black gang violence that plagues poor neighborhoods all over the US.

 

[Stinger911]

i have to say that the news really does fuel a lot of the animosity that is going on. it started with trayvon martin and they saw the kind of ratings they got from pushing that. when i saw they were showing the video of that poor fuckin guy dying, it was the most appalling thing i may have ever seen professional news show on tv.

that guy isn't a fucking prop for a reality tv show, we don't need to see victims and live action death in front of us. it doesn't just degrade the news networks, it degrades us as society as a bunch of zombie citizens obsessed with the worst things in the world.

i think the FCC should fine any network that showed it heavily. it's utterly ridiculous. we already have the internet if people really want to look for it themselves. next we are going to see people filling up coliseums to watch men being executed by wild animals like back in the roman days.

we really haven't changed that much as a species. better technology and some improved social norms, but we are still the same bloodthirsty mob. and we are just more sophisticated at lying to ourselves about it now.

Extremely well put. I really have little to add here. You captured my sentiments exactly. Who needs websites like Liveleak and Ogrish when you can walk into your gym at 4PM and stare at live-streamed death on TV during your treadmill jog?

We as a society truly are obsessed with the worst things in the world. Boy, oh boy, you nailed that.

Seeing that guy die on mainstream news truly was appalling. While we heard accounts of Trayvon et. al, the news networks literally broadcasted this man's death for millions of people to see, including mentally unstable and racist people. Truly vulgar and irresponsible IMO.

 

[Gregolian]

While seeing the man wheeze himself to death after being shot in the lung was disturbing and a noise I really wish I never had heard... my understanding is if the DEVGRU guys went through the Bin Laden house the way they were trained Bin Laden would have been unrecognizable. They generally put two in the chest and one in the head to make sure.

 

[sloppypie]

irresponsible is the best word for it. if a person takes the effort to go look for it on the internet, well it's the internet. it's a place you can find anything if you really want to.

but news networks are supposed to be for the public good. ffs, we protect it in the very first amendment of our bill of rights. and they are supposed to have ethics and standards, it's why we make fun of things like the national enquirer and tmz. to see them airing this non stop tonight was really disgusting.

and you have a point, if we are gonna be spoon fed that, then it needs to be open entirely for transparency. if we take that route, then the responsibility is on the public to be mature enough to process the information. instead, we are deliberately spoon fed stories to rile people up in order to get them to tune in so these greedy fucks can make money off us like fucking cattle.

i happen to be at a friend's place tonight and he had the news running all night. i couldn't get him to turn it off. but i don't even use cable any more, and i certainly don't ever watch the news. it's about the only stand i myself can take on it. even the brief tastes i get when i see it in public or at someone's place i'm visiting it makes me fuckin sick.

 

[Gregolian]

irresponsible is the best word for it. if a person takes the effort to go look for it on the internet, well it's the internet. it's a place you can find anything if you really want to.

but news networks are supposed to be for the public good. ffs, we protect it in the very first amendment of our bill of rights. and they are supposed to have ethics and standards, it's why we make fun of things like the national enquirer and tmz. to see them airing this non stop tonight was really disgusting.

and you have a point, if we are gonna be spoon fed that, then it needs to be open entirely for transparency. if we take that route, then the responsibility is on the public to be mature enough to process the information. instead, we are deliberately spoon fed stories to rile people up in order to get them to tune in so these greedy fucks can make money off us like fucking cattle.

i happen to be at a friend's place tonight and he had the news running all night. i couldn't get him to turn it off. but i don't even use cable any more, and i certainly don't ever watch the news. it's about the only stand i myself can take on it. even the brief tastes i get when i see it in public or at someone's place i'm visiting it makes me fuckin sick.

I can't do the news network thing anymore unless it's for something like sports. It makes me have a too depressing world view.

 

[Stinger911]

While seeing the man wheeze himself to death after being shot in the lung was disturbing and a noise I really wish I never had heard... my understanding is if the DEVGRU guys went through the Bin Laden house the way they were trained Bin Laden would have been unrecognizable. They generally put two in the chest and one in the head to make sure.

So three bullets would render him unrecognizable, or are you alluding to something else?

Even if he were unrecognizable as you say, I think that showing his body would have given the American public some solace, even if it angered jihadists (who were going to be angry anyway).

Showing random black men getting gunned down gives nobody solace and just serves to further an agenda of racial divide and outrage profiteering.

 

[Gregolian]

So three bullets would render him unrecognizable, or are you alluding to something else?

Even if he were unrecognizable as you say, I think that showing his body would have given the American public some solace, even if it angered jihadists (who were going to be angry anyway).

Showing random black men getting gunned down gives nobody solace and just serves to further an agenda of racial divide and outrage profiteering.

You also have to remember who has control of the vids. The vid of the individual in Baton Rouge was owned by a private citizen, not the government.

As to the first bit... I have had the unlucky pleasure to view crime scene photos of a person that had been shot in the back of the head with a .38 pistol... the front of the face literally didn't look like a person. Now imagine a gun that does this to ballistic gel:


Impacting a skull, brain matter, and exiting the front. I'm sorry if it's too graphic mods and if it please delete/edit as you will but there probably wouldn't be much of a face to see.

 

[7437]

They played that on the news? Seems over the top. I do t watch the news though, that shits trashy.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Why is it that footage of Osama Bin Laden's dead body was censored from the US airwaves because it would "inflame the Muslim world"... and yet...

Yesterday, the news networks ran 24/7 coverage of an average black man with a punctured lung bleeding all over the place and wheezing for air?

Clearly, if we look at Dallas, this shooting and the Baton Rouge shooting "inflamed the black community" (or more precisely, the ghetto black thug community) to the point that officers are now dead from retaliatory attacks.

Why is it that the news won't show us the bodies of our declared enemies but will gleefully show dead black men getting shot by police at the first opportunity?

At the very least, there is a double standard at work, and if you wander into the land of conspiracy theories, the white cop vs black citizen footage is shoved down our throats at every opportunity to purposely inflame racial tension.

Either we should see EVERYTHING -- dead terrorists and dead citizens -- or we should see nothing. No dead terrorist footage, no cellphone footage of cop shootings.

As far as I'm concerned, the news networks now have blood on their hands. 4 cops dead, 11 shot in Dallas, in a city and state the other shootings didn't even occur in. I hope the sensationalism, race baiting, and ratings were worth it.

A couple of things, while I agree with aspects of your overarching point about double standards and the media acting as a medium for instigation rather than information, I'll take issue with your example of OBL and the tone of your remarks regarding the black community.
1. If the media had access to OBL's body it would have been given CNN's coverage of Anna Nicole Smith a run for its money.
2. "the ghetto black thug community" is offensive and grossly ignorant of reality. Tamir Rice wasn't a thug. Sandra Bland wasn't a thug. Walter Scott wasn't a thug. BLM, while repugnant in its overt racism, wasn't uninspired.

 

[Stinger911]

A couple of things, while I agree with aspects of your overarching point about double standards and the media acting as a medium for instigation rather than information, I'll take issue with your example of OBL and the tone of your remarks regarding the black community.
1. If the media had access to OBL's body it would have been given CNN's coverage of Anna Nicole Smith a run for its money.
2. "the ghetto black thug community" is offensive and grossly ignorant of reality. Tamir Rice wasn't a thug. Sandra Bland wasn't a thug. Walter Scott wasn't a thug. BLM, while repugnant in its overt racism, wasn't uninspired.

1. I find it curious that the government makes a concerted effort to keep footage that would inflame jihadists under wraps but makes zero effort to keep footage that would inflame the black community under wraps. As I mentioned in previous posts, the government could legislate new FCC guidelines to prevent networks from airing acquired footage that shows someone dying for minutes in superlative detail. I'm looking at the effort expended to keep one minority group complacent (radical Islamists) relative to another minority group (black Americans). I'm not arguing for or against censoring footage from news networks. I'm simply pointing out the lack of consistency.

2. You took what I said completely out of context. I was referencing tonight's vigilante shooters, not victims of police violence.

 

[CIAPuppetShow]

Yea Osama Bin Laden's body would have inflamed the Muslim World but the U.S. illegally invading and bombing tens of thousands of muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan hadn't already.

The simple reason is it's BULLSHIT.

 

[oldshadow]

I agree they could be more responsible and tone back on the "if it bleeds it leads" type of thing but I'm not for making laws to restrict the 1st amendment any more then it is.

 

[djacobox372]

Is TS really that stupid that he doesn't understand the difference?

 

[dissolved]

i have to say that the news really does fuel a lot of the animosity that is going on. it started with trayvon martin and they saw the kind of ratings they got from pushing that. when i saw they were showing the video of that poor fuckin guy dying, it was the most appalling thing i may have ever seen professional news show on tv.

that guy isn't a fucking prop for a reality tv show, we don't need to see victims and live action death in front of us. it doesn't just degrade the news networks, it degrades us as society as a bunch of zombie citizens obsessed with the worst things in the world.

i think the FCC should fine any network that showed it heavily. it's utterly ridiculous. we already have the internet if people really want to look for it themselves. next we are going to see people filling up coliseums to watch men being executed by wild animals like back in the roman days.

we really haven't changed that much as a species. better technology and some improved social norms, but we are still the same bloodthirsty mob. and we are just more sophisticated at lying to ourselves about it now.

Well, I think I can officially say I've agreed with everyone in here about something.

 

[dissolved]

I think it's a head in the sand that doesn't see that there's more than a bit of the tail wagging the dog going on. I wish for the most honest news reporting possible. Disproportionate reporting isn't that. Maybe with every awful story there should be a disclaimer statement of how the majority is practically affected by the piece.