Quote:
Originally Posted by oojay
Why does the mode by which he became aware of the events have any bearing whatsoever on how he should form his opinion? It doesn't. The fact that he happens to agree with the majrity of those who publicy voice their opinions is in no way his fault, nor should it discount his feelings toward the situation, nor anyone else's.
|
I'm not saying whether or not he should believe that Casey Anthony is guilty, I'm saying that this media led witch hunt (whether it's justifiable to demonize this girl or not) is an excuse to get people to yell and be angry and get their blood pressure up in an irrational frenzy of mob hatred.
Quote:
|
And how is he, or any other person voicing their opinion, helping the media profit from her death? I have never once seen Dirty on Fox News spewing hate, nor at Barnes & Noble hocking a book about the murder.
|
Every time you watch a Dateline special or a special news report or "whatever" you are telling the media that if they want ratings and add revenue they should continue to broadcast this case. They know that this is the kind of case that will get them ratings and add revenue, being a case of a murdered white girl and an "evil" mother. As terrible as this case is, it is not the only terrible case in America, but it has everything the news media knows will tug on the people's heart strings, so they are using it.
If the public was really as concerned as they appear to be about these things, they would actually do something about it (give to a charity for child abuse, start a neighborhood watch, actually pay more attention to their kids, or something). But they do not, because what they really want is not to actually "do" something, they just want to get their adrenaline pumping and get angry and have people see just how much they care about it.
Quote:
|
You say I "oversimplify" things, you can't see the forest for the trees man. The only people profiting from this are the lawyers and the jurors (who will write tell-all books). People like Nancy Grace and Jane Valez-Mitchell would get paid no matter what they talk about on their shows, so your argument is moot on that front.
|
There are more pundits and journalists than you can shake a stick at. If they do not find something that grabs the public's attention, someone else will. So, no they would not "get paid no matter what they talk about on their shows", they would get cancelled because no one would care.
Quote:
|
Don't tell me that I "oversimplify" things just because we have differing opinions. If you want to talk to me like I'm an idiot, then I will start to do the same.
|
If your argument sucks don't expect me to sugar coat my responses to make you feel better. I would expect you to give me the same courtesy, otherwise I'd be liable to think my bad arguments had weight that they don't have and just keep on doing it. A little bit of irritation and humiliation is better than continuing to sound like an idiot.
Note: I'm not saying you sound like an idiot, I'm just speaking generally.
Quote:
|
Mkay? kay. "Oversimplifying" would be more like relegating anyone who thinks that she is guilty into being a "lynch mob," wouldn't it? It would.
|
I guess it would be annoying for me to tell you that this is a strawman? Oh well. Just thinking that she's guilty is not being a lynch mob. I think she's probably guilty of something, but I'm not shooting off at the mouth about how she should fry.