you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 261 points 2 years ago (31 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

👀 👀 👀

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 98 points 2 years ago (20 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 2 years ago (15 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    They sure can agree on a few things:

    • Ads make money.
    • More ads make more money.
    • Money.
    • More money.
    • 🦀 money money money 🦀
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    There are several large nonprofit media corporations such as NPR.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (10 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (9 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 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)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (7 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (2 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent