21 injured in Pennsylvania school stabbing

So, what you're saying, essentially, is the difference between Chicago and other cities is akin to the difference between using a gun to kill dozens of students and using a knife to mildly injure dozens of students?

 

Can't the same be said about why one might draw attention to gun violence as opposed to knife violence?

 

Was it here that someone argued that it would have been "just as traumatic" for someone to witness the China stabbing rampage as the Sandy Hook massacre? I seem to remember that.

 

Oh no! Your circular argument has bested me.

I love how we're now downplaying yesterday too. "Mildly injure" Really. Everyone was mildly injured?

I also like how you turn everything into a defense of the media -- except for some media, like CNN, they're different, and I don't have to defend them, because what they do is not journalism, and I was not in the same industry as CNN, so I don't have to defend them, and feel only embarrassment for what they do.

If the mainstream media chose not to hyperventilate about yesterday's stabbing, that is entirely appropriate. And, shame on CNN for going wall-to-wall.

The mainstream media is also correct to cover the crime/murder/homicide problem in Chicago, but the professional media does it in a responsible manner. And, shame on the partisan media for covering it. They cover it for the wrong reasons, and do it in an irresponsible way, that serves only to score political points against the President.

It's perfect. Mainstream media can do no wrong. They always make the right call. The reporting is always sober, and thoughtful. And, when they don't report on something, it's also for the right reason.

 

This thread has reached the point, as many do lately, where it is impossible to discern what the fuck YankeeFan is even trying to say.

 

It's ok. The take away is that the media is always right. I shouldn't question them, and should just take what is spoon fed to me.

 

Who said this?

 

It only seems that way because we only argue when you're absolutely, 100 percent sure the media is wrong when they're not.

When you're right in your criticism, I agree with you.

Also, when I talk about media coverage, I talk about how I would do it. Because I was really good at it. I would never do what CNN, Fox or MSNBC do. I criticized NJ.com's story on DeSean Jackson's "gang ties." I criticized the media in general for trying to turn every homosexual athlete into the gay Rosa Parks. I criticize the "media" for reading Twitter on a smartphone on live teevee. I criticize the media for not bothering to check basic facts before they publish. I criticize the media for thinking they do not need editors or that readers are forgiving of facts that are wrong. Et cetera.

 

Let me translate for you, "Media bad. Media evil. Me hate media."

 

A free press is essential to a Democracy.

What we're seeing too frequently, is a media who wants to partner with the very people they cover.

 

Upon further reading, it appears four people are in "critical" condition, which could really mean a lot of things, but most of all that they're alive and will remain so. Meanwhile, someone is on record saying most of these kids didn't even know they had been stabbed.

All of that ignores the fact that a kid opening fire with a gun in the same hallway at the same time would've resulted in untold numbers of dead bodies, which, perish the thought, would be way more newsworthy.

 

This is true. Hence, my running don't-cover-games-any-more thought experiment.

But what's it have to do with this?