Media Gives Mass Murderer His Dying Wish

[Borodog]

The way the media is exploding the notoriety and infamy of this psychopath is revolting. They are giving him exactly what he wanted, and in my opinion by doing so they are greatly increasing the chances of copycats.

And no, I will not provide a link to the pictures or video. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[MuresanForMVP]

he looks and sounds like a complete crybaby pussy in those videos.

[Borodog]

I can see the advertising campaign now:

"NBC: The number one choice in news coverage among psychotic mass murderers."

[latefordinner]

How can the media be exploiting anything - aren't they simply providing their consumers what they want in the market? I thought there was no such thing as an "incorrect outcome" in the market?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
How can the media be exploiting anything - aren't they simply providing their consumers what they want in the market? I thought there was no such thing as an "incorrect outcome" in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said they were "exploiting anything"? Who said it was an objectively "incorrect outcome"? Am I not free to say that Macy Gray sucks just because she sells a lot of albums? Am I not free to criticize the choices made by a private business just because I believe in free markets?

Or is this just a chance for you to make a snarky remark?

Also, welcome to last year.

[latefordinner]

thanks for the thread link - obv I don't have the time to go back and reread a year's worth of threads so any references to discussions that have already taken place are welcome

sorry I read "exploding" as "exploiting". I wasn't being snarky for no reason, I was simply saying that in so many other posts you are so vehement about the fact that if a business is providing something and is profitable in a market it is proof that it is "good" - not in the sense of "good" as in "I like it" but "good" as in allowing people to freely choose what they want

--

sure you are welcome to say hey that artist sucks, I think people that buy her albums have no taste, but in this case you are coming much closer to saying hey this news coverage sucks, I think society would be better off if they stopped showing this psychopath's face and playing his words 24/7

--
(start brief thread hijack)
I think this is a perfect example of the mystification/alienation of a capitalist system in that it obscurs the true social costs of production and consumption decisions so that people "rationally" choose something they wouldn't have rationally chosen in a much different socioeconomic system

eg; if an alien race came down to the US 100 years ago and said hey, we'll give you this fantastic technology that allows you to move places at 10 times the speed of your horse and buggies, but you have to hold a lottery every year and randomly select 100,000 people that we can kill, people would be like get the [censored] out of town

capitalists often refer to this cost obscuring as externalities and believe that the freer a market is, the more these externalities will be able to be internalized

i refer to them as the natural outgrowth of a socioeconomic system that incentivizes individual profit over social wellbeing

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can the media be exploiting anything - aren't they simply providing their consumers what they want in the market? I thought there was no such thing as an "incorrect outcome" in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said they were "exploiting anything"? Who said it was an objectively "incorrect outcome"? Am I not free to say that Macy Gray sucks just because she sells a lot of albums? Am I not free to criticize the choices made by a private business just because I believe in free markets?

Or is this just a chance for you to make a snarky remark?

Also, welcome to last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that this is one of the worst things about the free market. There is a line between aggression and free speech, and that line is marketing. Obviously freedom of speech only goes so far before you are actually harming someone; if I went out and started shouting mean things at someone passing by on the street with a megaphone, most libertarians would agree that that's aggression.

Marketing is disturbingly similar, albeit to a lesser degree. Sellers play mind games with their consumers all the time, and commit aggression against them in very, very subtle ways to make them buy their product. They aim to make women feel fat and ugly if they don't buy this shampoo, and make men feel inadequate and unsuccessful if they don't have the right car. And very often, it works.

I think the best thing we can do is to understand and teach people how marketing works, and try to instill a real, practical set of values so that people aren't constantly being led to feel inadequate when they walk by Calvin Klein ads.

Is marketing aggressive? Maybe. It's a very grey area. However, I think giving consumers the tools to protect their own psychic well-being is much, much better than stopping marketing, which will just result in a massive infringement of free speech.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought there was no such thing as an "incorrect outcome" in the market?

[/ QUOTE ]
What Borodog is doing (critisizing a service that is subpar in his opinion) is essential to the success of a free market.

[latefordinner]

No because he is not just criticizing it, he is admitting that a free market in news is often going to produce this particular negative outcome (not just the NBC is a crappy news station). Now this doesn't mean he can't also argue, eh, yeah it sucks but it is better than any alternative. He is not saying NBC sucks, I'd rather watch XYZ but that a free market where TV stations sell advertising by attracting visitors is going to lead to situations where news stations are profitable to the extent that they sensationalize and present a skewed version of reality ("if it bleeds it leads....")

However, I think you could also argue that the proliferation of blogs, podcasts, you tube videos, DIY documentaries, etc is good and that the free market will make corporate-controlled news irrelevant.

Personally i can't wait until that new subscription based news service that accepts no advertising starts. I'm brainfarting on the name of it now, but I know it includes both leftists (Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein) and some ACers on the advisory board.

[MoreWineII]

I agree it was somewhat tacky the way NBC handled this, but expecting a major news agency to sit on a scoop like this is insane. This is the day and age we live in, get used to it because it's only going to get worse.