We all read the news websites, breaking news sites are very popular, so are the websites for such papers here in Chicago like the Sun Times and the Tribune. They control what gets printed, the stories, the feel for the stories and now they control the comments readers have for the articles.
Isn't the media famous for crying censorship when certain things get withheld from them? Why then would they practice the same thing by shutting down comment sections for stories "too emotional" or "too hot topic" or whatever else they choose?
Isn't your opinion on the story important to them? In some case I think they have a certain agenda and really could care less what you say. Most of the people reading this will know instantly what I am referring to but for those of you who don't let me show you examples.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-suit-claims-chicago-police-punch-first-and-ask-questions-later-20110706,0,902009.story
In this story we have a federal lawsuit filed against Chicago police for an incident "caught on tape" the lawsuit is brought by Loevy and Loevy law firm, a firm made rich by suing the police department and hoping the city will settle so they can reap the rewards. The settlements come directly from your tax dollars and they have been getting rich doing it for years - with the media's help. In this video which I watched you see a very tense situation involving police and citizens, it says it was over searching a house. At one point in the video you see the "evidence" of a police officer punching a citizen who according to the lawyers was just "exercising their first amendment rights." The thing is when it comes to the video footage all you see is a bouncing camera and an arrest situation where yes it does appear that a punch may have been thrown. You do not have sound, you do not have any evidence that the punch was unjustified, or even a punch at all. Grabbing at an offender, from a distance, can look like a punch. We also do not know if the accused in this instance provoked any action, the only real thing I can see is a tense situation, a scuffle, and then a whole lot of other people running away, not backing off or walking off, actually running at full speed down streets, gangways etc. If these citizens were just exercising first amendment rights why did they run away so fast? In my experience some of those who ran were holding onto something they shouldn't have, I point this out based on my experience, I am not accusing them because I do not really know why they ran. Maybe they were really scared to be confronted with possible arrest, maybe their mother called them for supper, who knows? The thing is Chicago Breaking News has shut down any comments to this site, why?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2-chicago-cops-charged-with-sex-assault-20110511,0,6865638.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-2nd-police-officer-charged-in-sex-attack-posts-bond-20110513,0,1778317.story
Now here are two separate stories involving a recently famous alleged case where two on duty cops pick up a drunk girl and at some point consensual sex occurs in the squad car, they buy more booze and go back to her house and play strip poker, more sex happens and at this point the girl is now claiming she was raped. Was she? I don't really know what happened, I wasn't there. I can say at a bare minimum these officers exercise not poor judgement, but sheer stupidity, sex in a squad car, buying booze on duty etc is inexcusable, and if there is evidence she was raped then I hope these two get what they deserve. If it is a glory stunt for money then I hope these two get off on the charges, they should not get their jobs back for their stupidity. That's my opinion, you are entitled to yours. What is my point? Look at the article involving the officers lawyers, that's right no comments allowed. But in the second article involving bail set the comments are open, why? Oh yes that's right Loevy and Loevy are now representing the victim in this case. So why open comments on a bad side of the story, but close comments on the officers side of things? The only thing I can figure is to assist one side of the story, there is no other reason I can think of.
The thing I really do not get is why the need for censorship in the first place. Anyone can comment, and if there is civility in the comment it should be allowed to go through. What I mean by civility is there should not be racism or profanity or things like that. If you think that the two are guilty you should be allowed to vent your feelings. If you think they are being railroaded you should also be able to post that. Gearing comments only to one side though is dangerous, it shows a bias by the media towards not the truth that happened, but the truth as they want it to be. The media should never strive for that, the media should strive for the truth, always.
Walter Cronkite, while I do not agree with much of his views on the world always appeared neutral and professional. The newspapers of that age were much in the same, they sought the truth not sensationalism. We now live in an age where the media is trying to adjust how you think and that is dangerous. They claim it is in an effort to get the story out to the people, but I think that causes more damage than good. Give me a reporter who researches what they are writing, even if I disagree with it I will respect it because it is factual.
Is it any wonder why the newspapers are struggling so?
No comments:
Post a Comment