Another Mass Shooting

The studies I showed and the data all back up the guy's point.  The 'extraordinary-type shooters' you listed as exceptions do NOT disprove the data.  They are just some that the Media took a fancy to.  

The overall comparison is still the same.  So, just because you do not agree with data and studies but can find exceptions doe not mean the overall theme is wrong.

Correct.  I think the guy made a very valid point.  The data and studies we looked at seem to back him up.

If he was not correct, what was the reason then?

The studies say they do more than the average black guy or the non-AR guys.  That is why 'normal' is usually in quotations. 

Can you show this somehow?  Because I showed otherwise.  So, I am interested in seeing the refutations. 

The extraordinary type shootings are the only shooting that receive national news coverage. This was my point. Race and weapon are non-factors. I double dog dare you to find one mass shooting lacking extraordinary circumstances that both involved a white male and received an abnormal amount of media coverage. I dare you.

I am very confused how you do not know what you are even responding to.  It was linked in the very post you responded to?

I already proved my point by listing numerous recent shootings that don't fit the "white guy with an AR" trope yet still received extensive national coverage.

I wasn't responding to the linked article. I was responding to the quote below the article. I have made this abundantly clear. That singular quote is all I have been talking about. I have highlighted it multiple times.

Then you would have to quantify what you are calling 'abnormal amount of media coverage'?  

THAT IS NOT what the guy was saying at all.  He was saying that the WHITE AR mass shooter gets MORE coverage then the BLACK non-AR guy.  This is really not hard to understand.  All of the studies and data were posted as well.

Define "more coverage".

That is NOT proving the point.  That is just that others commit the crimes.  NOT that they GET MORE coverage.  

Maybe you should have noticed that the quote was referring to the article.   

So, the question is still if he is wrong -- WHAT WAS the reason?

How are you quantifying what receives "more coverage"?

Yes.  But you still keep saying you do not know what article the guy was talking about.  So, you do not even seem to have context of what he is talking about.

Maybe look at the studies and data I posted and you can quantify your own definition of 'more coverage' if you do not agree with theirs.

BUUT you would have to have something to back it up with.

Again, if you have studies showing otherwise, I would like to see them.

@StumpTownStu

They look at the amount of articles posted, the length of time it is in the news and how widespread it is, etc.  Many variables determine this.

But even they admit -- like we already agreed on -- that the unusual ones get additional coverage.  BUT, again, that WAS NOT the TYPE the article was referencing.  

@StumpTownStu

 Catch you tomorrow.  Off to look at markets for a bit.

But when you get time look at some of the studies.  Again, these are very interesting to look at from many angles -- psychologically, socially, criminally, economically, profiling, etc.

Again, I do not know how much you read or like to -- but some of these are very good ones to look at. 

@Raiders22

 You're waffling. I've made it clear that I was responding to a specific quote, which I have highlighted numerous times. You alluded to race and style of weapons are the factors that lead to a story garnering extended media coverage. I say it is other factors such as number of victims. I dare you to post any dats that refutes this point, ot backs up your point. You can't assume a mass shooting involving three victims will receive the same coverage as a mass shooting involving ten. If you can show a shooting involving a white perpetrator and under 4 victims got more coverage than that if a similar shooting involving a black perpetrator, then you have a leg to stand on. If your data does not account for things such as the number of the victims, the relative age of the victims, etc, then you are full of shit. Are we really question why a random bar shooting where tow people are killed doesn't get the same coverage as the Las Vegas shooting, the Buffalo shooting, etc? Are we really going to act like the race of the shooter is what factors into any discrepancy in coverage? You can't be serious.

Of course, again, there are multiple issues the guy was addressing with that quote about the article I first posted.

There is a reason that most people believe the disproportionate  majority of mass shooters are white, when, in fact, they are black.  

It is the Media and their coverage.  It is their portrayal and their narrative.

No one is saying that sensational stories do not get more coverage, we have established this and the data and studies show it.

The largest predictor of violent crime and gun crimes and mass shootings is a city’s black population.  The data shows this.  The question is why is this not widely known?

Why are people, especially in the black community, asking why their mass shootings do not get the coverage?

As many say it has become ‘normalized’ and not as newsworthy.

That issue has got to be addressed and remedied in order to confront the issue in the black community.  

Everyone ‘knows’ there is a problem with the young white male committing mass shootings; not as many ‘know’ of the black male committing mass shootings.  

Why is that?  You have to be able to answer that question with data and studies and show that the news is not skewed because that is where folks get their information from. 

There is a big push from the Media on guns and especially ‘assault-style’ rifles and AR-15s.  Why is that?  Those are not the guns that are used the most.  But people have that perception. Why is that?  You have to be able to show with data and studies that this is the case.

I have shown many articles, quotes, data, and studies that show how this has become the case.

You cannot simply say it is NOT the case without being able to back it up.

You cannot refute it by claiming some exceptions and using those to try to disprove the4 general rule.  You cannot list cases that DID have national coverage and claim they were NOT covered.  That does not make sense.

However, as the guy in one of the articles I posted did, you can list some that did NOT receive coverage and you did NOT hear about them nationally.  Why?  His speculation was because they were black.  At least in his cases they are not really covered nationally, so it would seem he has a point.  

You have NOT shown any studies or data to back up your perceptions at all.  Because you, like all of us that do not look into it, have a preconceived notion because of the Media.

Again this comes into play:

There are 2 ways the media covers mass shootings. Here's why the difference matters

On episodically vs. thematically framed news stories

There was work that came out in the early '90s looking at whether or not the way that news stories are told could affect the kind of attributions of responsibility that viewers or readers might make. So, if you tell a news story about individual people, individual problems, really following that story narrative arc, is it possible that you're actually going to encourage those readers and listeners to attribute responsibility and look for solutions at the level of the individual in the story?

On how people understand news differently when it's more episodic and less thematic

When a story is told in terms of individual people, our brains are going to be activating constructs about this person in this place at this time. And we're naturally going to want to also protect ourselves and say, "Well, this awful thing wouldn't happen to me, because look it happened over there to those people in this place." And we're going to extrapolate from that and say, "If I don't do these things, I'm not in this place, and I'm not those people, this will not happen to me."

As opposed to when covered more thematically, broadly, in terms of systemic factors that may contribute to this trend, that is going to encourage people to think: What could the system do? What kind of legislation might be passed to address this issue?

I think the AR-15 part is pretty self-evident.

But just in case:

Every time there is a massacre involving an AR-15-style weapon — such as the May 6 shopping mall shooting in Allen, Texas, that killed eight people — the gun draws a new flood of media coverage and public discussion. The stakes, and rhetoric, escalate — and sales, according to the gun industry, remain brisk.

With the frequency of mass shootings increasing, so have calls to restrict sales of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, a design originally created for the military that is now copied by a variety of manufacturers under different names. Washington state and Illinois passed bans this year, joining seven other states and Washington, D.C., that prohibit semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. President Joe Biden says he wants to reinstate a nationwide ban that expired in 2004.

The researchers found that handgun purchases rose when there was an extensive amount of media coverage.

“As the media coverage that mass shootings receive is disproportionate and frequently sensationalized, it thus inspires fear and motivates gun purchases for self-defense,” wrote the authors, Gina Liu and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD.

They also noted that “as the shooters race/ethnicity and ideological motivation are also associated with an increase in the extent of media coverage as well as with its content, media focus on the perpetrator rather than the victims may also contribute to increasing handgun purchases.”

“The 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates said that 90% of the prisoners who had a gun during their crime didn’t get it from a retail source,” ABC News reported.

That shatters several myths. First, it proves that criminals obtain their firearms illegally. Second, it shows that the MSR isn’t the fabled monster as the media portrays.

It’s a rifle that’s often maligned, mostly because of a moniker of “assault weapon” that was tagged to the rifle. Josh Sugarmann, who works for the Violence Policy Center gun control group, seized upon the public’s misunderstanding of the semiautomatic black rifle and the automatic firearm used by the military, according to The Washington Post in 2013.

Things have changed in more than three decades. The ABC News report described the fact that while MSR ownership is more common than that of Ford F-150s, they are still rarely used in crime. There are more than 20 million MSRs in circulation, and they are the most popular selling centerfire rifles in America today. The fact is most crimes are committed by criminals that illegally obtain handguns.

Media Misinformation

AR-15-style rifles, the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), or “assault weapons” as they’re erroneously called in gun control circles and allied media, are not that. They are semiautomatic rifles that use the same one-trigger-pull, one-fire technology used by handguns and shotguns that was invented in the late-nineteenth century.

That doesn’t stop media from portraying MSRs as difficult to handle and aim, as CNN did, and dangerous machines capable of breaking a grown man’s arm. Political journalist Kevin McCallum described his first time handling an AR-15 as life altering.

“It is difficult to describe the impact — physical and personal — of that first shot,” McCallum wrote. “A deep shock wave coursed through my body, the recoil rippling through my arms and right shoulder with astounding power.”

That description went viral and drew rebuke from MSR owners across the country. In one response parents of a 7-year old girl posted a video of her firing several rounds from an MSR, demonstrating the rifle’s limited recoil. It’s one of the characteristics that make MSRs popular.

In one of the more high-profile instances of law-abiding citizens using AR-15-style firearms for protection, Steven Williford used an MSR to stop the murderer from inflicting more carnage in the Sutherland Springs, Texas tragedy four years ago. There are numerous other examples media ignore.

Despite what most major media outlets continue to falsely claim, the MSR is a versatile firearm that is able to meet the unique needs of a diverse population that recognizes its functionality and effectiveness, including millions of women.

Whether for self and home defense purposes, or to take out to the woods and fields for a hunt, MSRs are safe and get the job done. It’s why there are more than 20 million MSRs in private circulation today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVm-a2MUSY

They are obviously Right-leaning.  But they address the Texas shooter and how that was covered or changed.  Maybe the last 20 minutes or so.

I have never heard of these guys but they address some of this and the Media’s handling of it.  They have some clips showing some stats, etc.

I know he is black and Right-leaning and the Left does not like him.  But he has written and talked on this before as well.  This is one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVpNy8FgATs

So, it is White and Black folks that question the Media’s coverage of the mass shootings by race.  They are questioning it for some reason.  That reason is that it is empirically-proven that the Media has handled these things very differently.  

The question is why do they do it?  

The issue is that it also hurts when trying to come up with a fix on these things.  They are being disingenuous.

I will post a lot of the smaller segments that I have posted before with some newer ones that'd up and back all of this handling of these issues by the Media and couples it all together in the article I first linked, along with the comment about that article.  I think this adds a lot of credence to the guy's point(s).

In particular, her research looks at whether the media has a bias in favor of covering specific events and individual people, instead of looking more broadly at what leads to tragedies such as mass shootings.

This difference is called episodically framed stories versus thematically framed stories.

Young unpacks why this matters, how the media should cover mass shootings, and the one question she says journalists should ask themselves.

On whether the Uvalde shooting was covered more episodically or more thematically:

I think it depends on what outlets we're talking about. I have seen a whole lot of attention paid to more thematically framed coverage that looks at the history of gun control in the United States, rates of gun violence broken out by state, etc. Those thematically framed stories contextualize what happened in Texas within a broader framework — a political framework, a cultural framework, a historical framework. That's thematic.