...where is the nonstop media frenzy to help find them like the one we saw in the case of the missing scout, Elizabeth Smart, that Jessica girl who was killed earlier this year, etc???
Hmmm....take a look at the following link and see if you can think of a reason...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/24/missin ... index.html
It disgusts me the way the media latches on to one or two cases and ignores the thousands of others - because I think it is not hard to find a pattern in similarities of the cases they really choose to pursue hardcore.
3 boys disappear from their backyard in Jersey...but...
Part of it is the fact that they are all boys. Bitch at me for pointing it out if you like, but the media is very sexist in that it much prefers to portray women as victims, to the point of marginalizing male victimization (high profile murders and corporate treachery notwithstanding).
When those 6 or 7 American soldiers were captured -- jesus, i guess that was way back in afghanistan -- every paper in Toronto ran pictures of them, and in every single paper it was a giant photograph of the one woman, with little 1/8 size photos of the men below or to the side.
Examples are everywhere:
In 2002 article, the Washington Post said that a U.S. Army decision to staff Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition teams entirely with men was "welcome news -- because it means less chance that female soldiers will be killed or wounded by enemy fire" i.e. that men will die instead of women.
In 2000, the Post ran a story about the killings of 115 baby girls and 158 baby boys in the U.S. in 1997 under the title "A Matter of Violent Death and Little Girls."
In the 90s, USA Today ran a story about the 4000 or so people who died at work that year (84% being men) under the title "732 women were murdered on the job."
I realize they aren't all the most recent (i don't read the papers right now so i cant name current examples), but that's how newspapers think. Victimization of women means more papers bought.
When those 6 or 7 American soldiers were captured -- jesus, i guess that was way back in afghanistan -- every paper in Toronto ran pictures of them, and in every single paper it was a giant photograph of the one woman, with little 1/8 size photos of the men below or to the side.
Examples are everywhere:
In 2002 article, the Washington Post said that a U.S. Army decision to staff Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition teams entirely with men was "welcome news -- because it means less chance that female soldiers will be killed or wounded by enemy fire" i.e. that men will die instead of women.
In 2000, the Post ran a story about the killings of 115 baby girls and 158 baby boys in the U.S. in 1997 under the title "A Matter of Violent Death and Little Girls."
In the 90s, USA Today ran a story about the 4000 or so people who died at work that year (84% being men) under the title "732 women were murdered on the job."
I realize they aren't all the most recent (i don't read the papers right now so i cant name current examples), but that's how newspapers think. Victimization of women means more papers bought.
Another important factor is simply marketing. "Do we need to run the kidnapping first page?" "Naw, we have the impeachment." "Okay stick it on A21." Then there's politics and all sorts of behind-the-scenes red-tape shit you don't even want to know about.tnf wrote:It disgusts me the way the media latches on to one or two cases and ignores the thousands of others - because I think it is not hard to find a pattern in similarities of the cases they really choose to pursue hardcore.
-
^misantropia^
- Posts: 4022
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:24 pm
True. Mate of mine is a journalist. His editor summons him to concentrate on female abduct/abuse/etc. stories because they'll sell better, the 'reason' being that woman are supposedly defenseless while men are not (once again, supposedly) and thus making for a higher 'oh my dear god'-factor. Dunno, but I don't think a 12 year old boy would put up a much better fight than a girl of the same age.
I work at a newspaper, and I can tell you first hand the reason.
Newspapers have changed from the group of united, truth-seeking journalists they were 40 years ago.
They are now only concerned with having the highest circulation, so they will be more attractive to advertisers, which is where they get their revenue.
That has gotten worse with consolidation, since the corporate parent requires them to run on skeleton budgets which are thinner and thinner every year - because corporations have to make a higher profit every successive year, in order to make stockholders happy.
Which is why real investigative journalists have to work for themselves, or for small independent organizations. Thanks to media consolidation and corporate political pressure, most of them would rather do that anyway - except for the frustration that comes from only being able to reach 10-15 percent of the people that the larger outlets can.
Newspapers have changed from the group of united, truth-seeking journalists they were 40 years ago.
They are now only concerned with having the highest circulation, so they will be more attractive to advertisers, which is where they get their revenue.
That has gotten worse with consolidation, since the corporate parent requires them to run on skeleton budgets which are thinner and thinner every year - because corporations have to make a higher profit every successive year, in order to make stockholders happy.
Which is why real investigative journalists have to work for themselves, or for small independent organizations. Thanks to media consolidation and corporate political pressure, most of them would rather do that anyway - except for the frustration that comes from only being able to reach 10-15 percent of the people that the larger outlets can.
Just heard word on the local news that the three boys were found, dead, in the trunk of an abandoned car...
Hmm...if this were 'random white girl' - this would be all over the news right now. It has not yet been mentioned on any of the major cable networks TV shows.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/24/missin ... index.html
Hmm...if this were 'random white girl' - this would be all over the news right now. It has not yet been mentioned on any of the major cable networks TV shows.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/24/missin ... index.html
-
Keep It Real
thats terrible man how do you live with that kind of stress in your liferiddla wrote:reason I mention this is because she's from here, less than a mile away from where I'm sitting now. There are cars with all kinds of 'Pray for Natalee' slogans etc on them and its all the buzz around the office since alot of these people's kids went to school with her.riddla wrote:Dont forget Natalee Holloway in Aruba
Well, they have been publicizing the trial of a former nanny who hit and ran (killed) two angelic looking Latino children, so maybe it's not all race. The brother and sister who died were the most beautiful, innocent looking children, it's hard to look at their picture cause it makes you feel bad.
The TV news is the worst, it's more like a reality show than actual news. The big deal they made out of the Scott Peterson trial that dragged on and on, I kept thinking if it was a black couple it would have been a total non-issue to the media.
The TV news is the worst, it's more like a reality show than actual news. The big deal they made out of the Scott Peterson trial that dragged on and on, I kept thinking if it was a black couple it would have been a total non-issue to the media.
but honestly, it must make you a bit hungry too.ajerara wrote:Well, they have been publicizing the trial of a former nanny who hit and ran (killed) two angelic looking Latino children, so maybe it's not all race. The brother and sister who died were the most beautiful, innocent looking children, it's hard to look at their picture cause it makes you feel bad.