Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

[katsung47]

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

snopes.com: Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

 

[GWV5903]

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

snopes.com: Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

They have no interest with the truth, manipulation is the goal...

This explains the vulnerability of the liberal left...

 

[Pogo]

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

snopes.com: Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

"The government" doesn't report the news, Einstein; the media do. And as your own link correctly points out, media news loves the negative. Always has. In this case nobody was killed, there's no massacre, one person injured, that's it. Not the stuff that feeds "if it bleeds it leads".

And the "goal", if it really needs spelling out, is to sell papers, and eyeballs and clicks. Mayhem and destruction and carnage do that. Avoidance of all that -- not so much.

Welcome to our planet.

 

[GWV5903]

uh

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

snopes.com: Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

"The government" doesn't report the news, Einstein; the media do. And as your own link correctly points out, media news loves the negative. Always has. In this case nobody was killed, there's no massacre, one person injured, that's it. Not the stuff that feeds "if it bleeds it leads".

And the "goal", if it really needs spelling out, is to sell papers, and eyeballs and clicks. Mayhem and destruction and carnage do that. Avoidance of all that -- not so much.

Welcome to our planet.

Yeah, nobody listens to the media, they don't form their opinions from the media, no they elected Oblamer because he is fair and balanced...

Didn't you know, he can walk on water...

 

[Politico]

It was not a mass shooting and there was no assault weapon.

 

[Pogo]

uh

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

"The government" doesn't report the news, Einstein; the media do. And as your own link correctly points out, media news loves the negative. Always has. In this case nobody was killed, there's no massacre, one person injured, that's it. Not the stuff that feeds "if it bleeds it leads".

And the "goal", if it really needs spelling out, is to sell papers, and eyeballs and clicks. Mayhem and destruction and carnage do that. Avoidance of all that -- not so much.

Welcome to our planet.

Yeah, nobody listens to the media, they don't form their opinions from the media, no they elected Oblamer because he is fair and balanced...

Didn't you know, he can walk on water...

-- ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZwVCjhq3YI]Star Trek - Nomad says "Non Sequitur" a few times - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Circe]

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

Naaaaaah, that was covered well. I read it at the time and I am in Maryland! It wasn't covered HUGELY because there weren't enough people killed to bother, and also the system worked. The off-duty cop did what she was supposed to.

Something actually worked. The media only reports catastrophes, not good news when things work.

 

[FA_Q2]

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

Naaaaaah, that was covered well. I read it at the time and I am in Maryland! It wasn't covered HUGELY because there weren't enough people killed to bother, and also the system worked. The off-duty cop did what she was supposed to.

Something actually worked. The media only reports catastrophes, not good news when things work.

And this is part of the problem. People want gun control without actually looking at any of the facts and they are clear: it does not work. A huge part of that problem is that you hear about every killing that the media can feed you but you almost never hear about the people that use guns to successfully defend themselves.

Recently, such actions have been getting better coverage because the right wing media outlets are trying to fight off the left wing media outlets march to gun control but normally these things go with very little coverage. People are killed every day with guns. People defend themselves every day with guns. Gun control only affects one side of that.

 

[TNHarley]

It was not a mass shooting and there was no assault weapon.

No shit? Because the fucker got capped!

 

[Circe]

And this is part of the problem. People want gun control without actually looking at any of the facts and they are clear: it does not work. A huge part of that problem is that you hear about every killing that the media can feed you but you almost never hear about the people that use guns to successfully defend themselves.

Recently, such actions have been getting better coverage because the right wing media outlets are trying to fight off the left wing media outlets march to gun control but normally these things go with very little coverage. People are killed every day with guns. People defend themselves every day with guns. Gun control only affects one side of that.

Great. So just defend yourself with a revolver or a .22 or a .38 special. Nobody need an assault rifle unless they are into drug deals and are stealing from the guy up the line, in which case all America wishes you'd just go to Mexico to do all that. If somebody is getting home invasions on the scale that needs an assault rifle, hello, they are just living wrong.

 

[FA_Q2]

And this is part of the problem. People want gun control without actually looking at any of the facts and they are clear: it does not work. A huge part of that problem is that you hear about every killing that the media can feed you but you almost never hear about the people that use guns to successfully defend themselves.

Recently, such actions have been getting better coverage because the right wing media outlets are trying to fight off the left wing media outlets march to gun control but normally these things go with very little coverage. People are killed every day with guns. People defend themselves every day with guns. Gun control only affects one side of that.

Great. So just defend yourself with a revolver or a .22 or a .38 special. Nobody need an assault rifle unless they are into drug deals and are stealing from the guy up the line, in which case all America wishes you'd just go to Mexico to do all that. If somebody is getting home invasions on the scale that needs an assault rifle, hello, they are just living wrong.

Except that gun control laws are not effective in lowering crime rates or lowering homicide rates. It has been proven over and over again that such laws are ineffective at best. On top of that, almost all crimes that are committed with a weapon are committed with handguns. Those that are not could easily be done with handguns as well. Sandy Hook could have easily been done with a handgun and, as a matter of fact, handguns are BETTER suited for such insanity than rifles because they perform better in closer ranges. You are lying to yourself if you think Sandy Hook would have turned out different or better if he had simply used the handguns he had brought instead of the rifle.

Laws that want to limit a right must show that they are somehow needed or effective at enforcing some common good. Otherwise, your rights should remain untouched. Gun control has simply failed to do so though it has been put in effect thousands of times in hundreds of different places.

 

[PaulS1950]

When would-be mass murderers are confronted with and stopped before they can kill at least four people it isn't considered a mass murder. there are, on average, over 3000 times each day that a civilian protects themselves or others with the lawful use of a gun. Why do we rarely hear about these things?

Because if we were constantly reminded of how much good guns do in this country the government would never be able to pass any legislation to remove any guns from anyone who lawfully owned one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Psychological control. The government monopolize the news release.

They beat the drum to report every shooting after Sandy Hook case, but neglect one if it won't benefit their goal.

Media Quiet about San Antonio theater shooting

On Sunday Decmber 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT SHOOTING, A MAN WENT to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, Co theater story plus a restaurant.
Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week.

snopes.com: Media Quiet About San Antonio Theater Shooting

It’s truly remarkable to consider there are those who actually believe all the media are part of some sort of ‘conspiracy’ to promote a ‘common anti-gun agenda,’ absent any evidence.

The OP article is not ‘evidence,’ it’s anecdotal, subjective, and irrelevant.

 

[PaulS1950]

The media has not supported accurate and fair reporting practices for some time. Do I believe there is a conspiracy? No, but I do understant that sensationalizing horrible events sells better than 3000+ small daily articles about how Jane Doe stopped two armed thugs that were invading her home where she and her two children were having lunch.

I would think that accurate and fair news would at least list the number of such events even if they weren't plastered on the front page. When one man goes into a "gun free" zone and kills dozens the media has so much better chance to capture the guns he used, the people who were killed and the poor survivors who are endlessly persued to provide quotes and sound bytes that are printed and aired only when they are against the guns or filled with emotion that the news then turns against the guns instead of the perpetrator.

Even if the perpetrator kills himself he is immotalized in the inherent rabble that streams over the airwaves and the front page papers for weeks following the tragedy. The biggest tragedy is that while the name of the perp is remembered the names of the victims are forgotten.

It would almost be better if it were a conspiracy. At least then we could fight it on moral grounds but as it is it is just "business" and "policy" to broadcast the name of the perp and announce the new record number of dead victims while forcing the blame on the kind of tool he used and not even try to figure out or announce the reasons for this behavior - this violence from one individual on so many others.

Not a conspiracy but rather oppertunistic journalism - a way to sellpapers or gain ratings over another station with no empathy, little accuracy and less understanding of what the real issues are or how important they are to finding a real solution.