Why is everyone losing their minds about Christchurch?

[Curious George]

But the thing is, I was never arguing that the media always selects news for political reasons. And of course I was never arguing, as he/she was implying, that there shouldn't be news coverage of something unless it has a comparable impact to deaths from cancer. I also wasn't arguing that there can't be multiple explanations for why something is receiving more coverage. So it was absolutely 100% a strawman and if you read my initial post you'll see i'm not making any of those claims. I also don't know why people keep bringing up other news stories as if that somehow disproves anything about my position. I'm not even talking about any other stories, just the Christchurch one. So people claiming that X story doesn't have a political explanation doesn't mean the Christchurch one doesn't.

Of course there is a wide spectrum of explanations for why certain things receive more coverage. I was never claiming otherwise. In this case however I think there's a good case to be made that the Christchurch story was advanced to pursue a left leaning political agenda. The main argument I made was that there were a number of worse atrocities preceding Christchurch that were hardly addressed, but as soon as its an alt right conservative killing a bunch of Muslim's, then suddenly the media and a considers this one of the greatest modern day tragedies. Now there could be other additional factors and its not like im saying this is certain proof or anything, but the main point of my post was also to tell people to stop being so hysterical about an over dramatized story. Its a reasonable hypothesis to propose that the often left leaning, biased media is selecting and advancing (or not selecting) certain stories to pursue a political agenda. Not all of them! but definitely its possible for some of them and Christchurch fits the pattern. Augustus did a terrible job misrepresenting my argument and creating a long pointless diatribe for other possible factors. It also missed the central point of the post.

But the answer to why is this in the news is because so many people are drawn to the story. The reason they are drawn to the story is because it has factors relayed in @Augistus' post.

Consider for a moment that cwrtain tragedies pique people's interest and curiosity. Some stories can even create an obsession with the public.

Now news outlets are very interested in that. This is vecause the news is really there to make money. Sure they might be used for political agendas, but at their core they are just trying to sell ad time. To do that, they need viewers. This means that they are going to cater to what draws and keeps viewers. The New Zealand incident isn't plastered all over the news because of a political agenda. It is plastered all over the news because they want to milk it for what it is worth.

Now go through Augustus' post again. Look at those factors. Those are some of the key factors that attract people to a story. Now people follow this story even more for varipus reasons. For anti-gun crowd they get to think see here is yet another example of why guns need to be regulated. As the story progresses, gun issues come up and they then get to criticize any pro gun spin. The same is true for their opponents. The same is true for anti-alt right groups and pro alt right groups. Nationalists and globalists. This story has guns, immigration, mass killings, hurt/dead (?) Children, religion, Muslims, racism, and all to do in a wealthy country where violence is less common.

The only thing the story is missing is rape.

So people flock to it. They want to know more and more. They want to critique the story, they want to critique the critiques of the story, then they want to critique that.

People love soap operas and the news gives them the best. They find moral outrage, righteous indignation, validation, and excitement. But, how they spend their time is their choice. It is no better or qorse than your own self righteousness exhibited in the OP. They want to fawn over murder and you want to fawn over their fawning of murder. And now you have me going after your fawning and their fawning, lol.

A vicious cycle really. The point here is that tragedy sells. Still, some tragedy sells better. Augustus gave a good explanation of why some tragedy sells better. The more people freak out over something, the more newsworthy that something is. The reasons people freak out over something are, in part, listed in that post you think is a strawman.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The point is that gun violence and massacres happen all the time. And it's not baseless. Where was the news coverage for the four Christian villages that were basically annihilated in the past few weeks?

Again, this isn't missed out because of media bias against right-wing groups or Christians, it's not part of the news cycle for the reasons already given.

Or how about the 453 Islamic terrorist attacksin 2018. We hardly heard anything.

Again, see above. And attacks by Muslim extremists DO reach the news cycle and remain in it for months.

This story went viral extremely fast and gained incredible popularity in social media. People are donating to the victims families and hosting vigils all over the country. And if you think the left leaning media isn't using this tragedy as a political tool to advance certain agendas then I guess you're not aware of well substantiated media bias.

Because it's largely imagined.

It was an alt right psychopath and they knew they could score political points. I can find you plenty of evidence of media bias and the media advancing and focusing on certain stories when it favors their narrative. The amount of attention devoted to this particular atrocity compared to the thousands of others is a pretty clear demonstration but there are actually studies as well.

Once again, Muslim terrorist attacks carried out in the west receive the same amount of coverage. It's about the news favoured by the cycle for coverage, NOT media bias.

And effectively people are saying we should not care as much.

No, they aren't.

They're not literally saying that

That's where you argument should end.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Meanwhile there were 453 Islamic terror attacks in 2018 which were mostly a footnote or not even mentioned.

So you're just going to completely ignore all of the Islamic terrorist attacks that DO go into the news cycle and focus on the unspecified attacks you're claiming here despite the fact that we have absolutely no idea of the extent, damage or effect of them?

Also that one didn't show up for long on the mainstream media cycle.

Are you serious? I live in the UK and we were still getting headlines about it six months after it happened.

Its significance in social media was minimal compared to Christchurch and I don't know where you're getting weeks, it was more like a day or two.

At this point, you're just deluded.

I'd also say the hysteria in that case was excessive as well considering all of the other attacks that had occurred during that time period. What's your point exactly?

That your "media bias against right-wing extremists" is imagined and there are other reasons why stories like Christchurch resonate with people and stay in the news cycle.

The media either arbitrarily or for political reasons will decide to advance a story and people get hysterical.

Again, it's not arbitrary or political. We've already explained how the news cycle works. Why are you ignoring it? Right now, you're the only person arbitrarily expressing outrage and a political agenda.

I've never suggested that the media only perpetuates stories for political reasons, just that the current Christchurch example is political. I think i've made a good case for why this is political

No, you haven't.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Its all over the news. People are freaking out. People are calling this the worst atrocity in modern history. Unbelievable over dramatization. Sure its tragic and I wish it didn't happen, but on the other hand nobody seems to care about the tens of thousands who die every day from preventable diseases, murders., car accidents, etc. GoFundMe campaigns are receiving thousands in donations while there are charities who would put the money to much better use.

Meanwhile nobody cares about the numerous Muslims and Christians who are murdered and tortured in Africa all the time.So what's with the hysteria and seemingly randomly placed empathy. I don't see empathy for all the other equally valuable people who die all the time and are instantly forgotten about. its seems entirely political. The left knew they could milk this situation to their benefit since it was a white alt right male murdering a bunch of Muslims in a mosque. Its political pandering and virtue signaling and its a disgrace.

INB4 all of the moral outrage over this post. Seriously before commenting in all caps about how I have no empathy, etc try to remember that I at least have just as much empathy for every other person who is forgotten about.At least i'm not a political tool who is being manipulated.

The recent events in Christchurch change the way we think about ourselves living in a modern, multicultural community within a democracy. Obviously events in Africa merit great attention too. However New Zealand is a developed nation. The media naturally tend to have a greater affinity for events that more directly reflects peoples with similar values to ourselves.

Christchurch changes our perception of ourselves. The Muslims in New Zealand have been peaceful and not caused any troubles. They were peacefully gathered in a place of worship. They have been targeted as a result of racisim and religious prejudice towards Muslims. They are innocent victims. This is not the narrative we are accustomed to. For a long tiime we have focused on Islamic extremism. Now we are forced to consider another type of extremism.

 

[Audie]

I have not seen anyone blaming 'white men' for this. Unfortunately I have seen some white men blaming Muslim immigration.

See post 57!

 

[Augustus]

This whole post is a straw man fallacy and is extremely simplistic. I'm not saying the media shouldn't cover major events because more people in general die--that's a straw man. I've never said that. I think its fair to cover the Christchurch shooting and to admit it was tragic, then move on since relatively speaking it was a small event. I brought up gun violence deaths and other shootings to show how commonplace it is. I'm calling out the hysteria and excessive attention surrounding it. It is receiving undue attention to score political points because it was perpetrated by an alt right psychopath, which the media and left wing pundits can use.

They did move on. It was the top news story for about 3 days which is pretty much what you would expect. A few days of news saturation then a gradual tailing off that covers political responses, funerals, memorial services, etc.

I'm assuming that you haven't been held in isolation for your entire life and are reasonably familiar with the way news works. Why then suddenly get so worked up over media working the way it's always worked?

It's not really the amount of attention that bothers you though, it is that this attention is sympathetic towards Muslims and that it disproportionately features people you politically disagree with.

Here's an analogy to my position: It would be like if there was a terror attack that was 4 times worse than 9/11 in a primarily republican city, which occurred in the preceding weeks and the media barely registered it as a footnote. Then 9/11 comes along in a predominantly liberal city and suddenly gets all this media attention, social media coverage, virtue signaling, etc. It wouldn't make sense and it would look like political pandering. You'd rightly point out that everyone just ignored the thing that was 4 times worse and that now it showing up in the media to score political points. Now imagine there are 9/11 events or worse occurring every other day throughout the year. Then try telling me that the one that occurs in a liberal city and receives significant coverage isn't political or biased.

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

"Here is a situation that would never happen in reality and bears no similarities to the current situation, but it's just like what is happening now!"

If ISIS had killed 50 people in a church in a major Western city, it would be huge news. It might get slightly less coverage, but only because it is lower in the 'unexpectedness' news value.

On the other hand, had 50 people been shot by ISIS in NYC, then it would be an even bigger story, as what happens in America is more newsworthy to most people than what happens in NZ.

I'm pretty confident that if the latter had happened, you wouldn't be here whining about excessive media coverage and how people were politicising it.

You need to think more in depth about the argument here and stop making 1 dimensional straw-men.

Perhaps focus on applying your in-depth knowledge on logical fallacies to your own posts as I'm pretty sure you can notice something

There is no 'depth' to your argument, it is simply an ideological rant based on half-baked assumptions that don't stand up to any scrutiny. The event did not get an inordinate amount of coverage when compared to other similar events based on news value.

My point was that you don't understand news value, so your argument is based on a flawed premise:

You: "Meanwhile nobody cares about the numerous Muslims and Christians who are murdered and tortured in Africa all the time.So what's with the hysteria and seemingly randomly placed empathy. I don't see empathy for all the other equally valuable people who die all the time and are instantly forgotten about. its seems entirely political."

Other than the fact that major terrorist attacks in Africa do generate significant news coverage (e.g.Westgate shopping mall attack - Wikipedia), albeit somewhat less, it is not 'entirely political' as you claim but mostly based on established news values.

Some things of relevance in why this may receive more coverage than something happening in Africa, and that this is not a result of 'randomly placed empathy':

• Unexpectedness: If an event is out of the ordinary it will have a greater effect than something that is an everyday occurrence. [You: nobody cares about the numerous Muslims and Christians who are murdered and tortured in Africa all the time]
• Meaningfulness: This relates to the sense of identification the audience has with the topic. "Cultural proximity" is a factor here—stories concerned with people who speak the same language, look the same, and share the same preoccupations as the audience receive more coverage than those concerned with people who speak different languages, look different and have different preoccupations.
• Continuity: A story that is already in the news gathers a kind of inertia. This is partly because the media organizations are already in place to report the story, and partly because previous reportage may have made the story more accessible to the public (making it less ambiguous).
• Logistics: Although eased by the availability of global communications even from remote regions, the ability to deploy and control production and reporting staff, and functionality of technical resources can determine whether a story is covered. (Schlesinger, 1987)
• Data: Media need to back up all of their stories with data in order to remain relevant and reliable. Reporters prefer to look at raw data in order to be able to take an unbiased perspective.

 

[Audie]

They did move on. It was the top news story for about 3 days which is pretty much what you would expect. A few days of news saturation then a gradual tailing off that covers political responses, funerals, memorial services, etc.

I'm assuming that you haven't been held in isolation for your entire life and are reasonably familiar with the way news works. Why then suddenly get so worked up over media working the way it's always worked?

It's not really the amount of attention that bothers you though, it is that this attention is sympathetic towards Muslims and that it disproportionately features people you politically disagree with.




That is one of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

"Here is a situation that would never happen in reality and bears no similarities to the current situation, but it's just like what is happening now!"

If ISIS had killed 50 people in a church in a major Western city, it would be huge news. It might get slightly less coverage, but only because it is lower in the 'unexpectedness' news value.

On the other hand, had 50 people been shot by ISIS in NYC, then it would be an even bigger story, as what happens in America is more newsworthy to most people than what happens in NZ.

I'm pretty confident that if the latter had happened, you wouldn't be here whining about excessive media coverage and how people were politicising it.



Perhaps focus on applying your in-depth knowledge on logical fallacies to your own posts as I'm pretty sure you can notice something

There is no 'depth' to your argument, it is simply an ideological rant based on half-baked assumptions that don't stand up to any scrutiny. The event did not get an inordinate amount of coverage when compared to other similar events based on news value.

My point was that you don't understand news value, so your argument is based on a flawed premise:

You: "Meanwhile nobody cares about the numerous Muslims and Christians who are murdered and tortured in Africa all the time.So what's with the hysteria and seemingly randomly placed empathy. I don't see empathy for all the other equally valuable people who die all the time and are instantly forgotten about. its seems entirely political."

Other than the fact that major terrorist attacks in Africa do generate significant news coverage (e.g.Westgate shopping mall attack - Wikipedia), albeit somewhat less, it is not 'entirely political' as you claim but mostly based on established news values.

Some things of relevance in why this may receive more coverage than something happening in Africa, and that this is not a result of 'randomly placed empathy':

• Unexpectedness: If an event is out of the ordinary it will have a greater effect than something that is an everyday occurrence. [You: nobody cares about the numerous Muslims and Christians who are murdered and tortured in Africa all the time]
• Meaningfulness: This relates to the sense of identification the audience has with the topic. "Cultural proximity" is a factor here—stories concerned with people who speak the same language, look the same, and share the same preoccupations as the audience receive more coverage than those concerned with people who speak different languages, look different and have different preoccupations.
• Continuity: A story that is already in the news gathers a kind of inertia. This is partly because the media organizations are already in place to report the story, and partly because previous reportage may have made the story more accessible to the public (making it less ambiguous).
• Logistics: Although eased by the availability of global communications even from remote regions, the ability to deploy and control production and reporting staff, and functionality of technical resources can determine whether a story is covered. (Schlesinger, 1987)
• Data: Media need to back up all of their stories with data in order to remain relevant and reliable. Reporters prefer to look at raw data in order to be able to take an unbiased perspective.

Well presented.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh give it a rest. You clearly think you're so morally Superior and it's amusing. And let me guess you think Trump caused all this. Are you familiar with Trump derangement syndrome?

Are you familiar with the fact that the shooter cited Trump as inspiration? Explicitly and specifically?

 

[Audie]

Are you familiar with the fact that the shooter cited Trump as inspiration? Explicitly and specifically?

Who else did he cite what quotes,, and what was his motive for citing them?

What was his motive for the attack?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Who else did he cite what quotes,, and what was his motive for citing them?

I don't know, why ask me? Look it up if you're interested. My post was replying to someone else's comment.

 

[Audie]

I don't know, why ask me? Look it up if you're interested. My post was replying to someone else's comment.

Of course you dont know.

I was just pointing out some shallow thinking.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Just pointing out some shallow thinking.

No, you were responding to a post out of context, but whatever.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No in the United States it's all over the news. Social media is blowing up. People are making vigils in the street.

People care about people. Go figure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I remember and I was saying the exact same thing I am now. That people are being overdramatic and hysterical. The people and media are very arbitrary about which atrocities they deem are worthy to care about. Even still I think the moral outrage for this event is even more significant

Well, if you remembered it, then you should not be saying the same thing you're saying now, because it's inaccurate.

People are being overdramatic about a man walking into places where people think they're safe and randomly shooting a bunch of people? I don't think so.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, if you remembered it, then you should not be saying the same thing you're saying now, because it's inaccurate.

People are being overdramatic about a man walking into places where people think they're safe and randomly shooting a bunch of people? I don't think so.

But it's Muslims who got shot up! Brown people! And people are freaking out like the victims were white Christians! I mean you can understand why people are upset at the response!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Its an extremely small event relatively speaking. I mean when you think about it in the context that 100 times as many people die from choking each year, and that whole villages are being gunned down all over the world, this becomes barely noteworthy.

And this is the same over dramatic hysteria that is gripping the media right now. Oh white supremacists are gaining a foothold and are assaulting Muslim immigrants in Western countries. The racists and the alt right are taking over!!!! The media is sure perpetuating this narrative. That's why they've adopted this Christchurch story and are advanced it so much. It strengthens this narrative. In fact the manifesto of the shooter makes the claim that his goal was to make the media and the identitarian left totally hysterical and start over reacting. In reality 99.99% of immigrant deaths are going to be from mundane things like car accidents, old age, and eating too much saturated fats . We need to keep things in perspective here and not overreact by creating a bunch of Orwellian censorship laws or something. I just don't understand why people are accepting this idea that Western civilization is being taken over by the alt right. If anything Western nations are becoming tremendously more Muslim.


As i've mentioned before this idea/implication that somehow these third world countries are less deserving of attention is kind of ridiculous. A fallacy in human nature shouldn't be a justification for why we should care about this particular attack more. I find the annihilation of 4 Christian villages in Africa to be much worse since many more people died. Just because they're in Africa doesn't mean we should care about them less.

I'm sorry you don't understand context or how the news works.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

See post 57!

That's the opposite of blaming white men.

 

[sealchan]

Its all over the news. People are freaking out. People are calling this the worst atrocity in modern history. Unbelievable over dramatization. Sure its tragic and I wish it didn't happen, but on the other hand nobody seems to care about the tens of thousands who die every day from preventable diseases, murders., car accidents, etc. GoFundMe campaigns are receiving thousands in donations while there are charities who would put the money to much better use.

Meanwhile nobody cares about the numerous Muslims and Christians who are murdered and tortured in Africa all the time.So what's with the hysteria and seemingly randomly placed empathy. I don't see empathy for all the other equally valuable people who die all the time and are instantly forgotten about. its seems entirely political. The left knew they could milk this situation to their benefit since it was a white alt right male murdering a bunch of Muslims in a mosque. Its political pandering and virtue signaling and its a disgrace.

INB4 all of the moral outrage over this post. Seriously before commenting in all caps about how I have no empathy, etc try to remember that I at least have just as much empathy for every other person who is forgotten about.At least i'm not a political tool who is being manipulated.

I think the fact that it was intolerance of a white male conservative against another faith, Islam in particular, is why it is getting so much attention. Many of us, myself included, are just so done with this and other forms of white Christian hypocrisy that we feel compelled to cry out as if to forever exorcise our greatest demons.

 

[Audie]

I think the fact that it was intolerance of a white male conservative against another faith, Islam in particular, is why it is getting so much attention. Many of us, myself included, are just so done with this and other forms of white Christian hypocrisy that we feel compelled to cry out as if to forever exorcise our greatest demons.

You sure it is not just virtue signaling?

 

[sealchan]

You sure it is not just virtue signaling?

Isnt that what I just said? ;-)

Guilt, hope, lack of personal confidence that one isnt actually full of fear of people from other cultures...virtue signaling sounds like a plan!