Talk:Should media hide names of mass shooters?

Comment

@Dan Polansky: My comment on the Wikidebate was undone. I had written The wording of the question suggests that the media want to prevent these incidents in the first place, or at least it seems to be based on this presumption. Isn't it possible these incidents receive gratuitous media exposure and specific rhetorical distinction in part because mass media (or the interests they serve) want others to copy them? Why should one presume that the media have the public interest in mind, particularly when there are so many other examples suggesting otherwise?

To put the argument on rails and only allow yes/no answers is very constraining and the format already feels stilted enough. In any discourse, the most interesting comments are often those that come out of left field. Your edit message appears to suggest you don't think it's worth considering, but America's mass media hardly deserve so much credit. Most of my own resources support this assertion. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wikidebate format is intentionally narrowly defined. There was a discussion about this in Colloquium and the result was not that the format should be abandoned; I can perhaps find a link to the discussion later.

The above does not directly contribute to the question of the debate. Worse yet, it is a wild idea, suggesting that the media show the names for the purpose of creating more events to report on later. If the title of the debate were about this wild idea, fine, but to place this kind of tabloid or quasi-conspiracy theory idea into a debate that should have been serious and calm seems unwise.

It is not true that the wording suggests anything about what the media want or does not want; that seems like a creative reading into the question something that is not there. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"Worse yet, it is a wild idea, suggesting that the media show the names for the purpose of creating more events to report on later." Not quite this, but because it may be convenient for the interests mass media serves.The media exist to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests, and if we can't take this for granted, at least you certainly have no grounds to call it an impossibility. The socratic debate begins with an assertion. I made an assertion and instead of replying, you removed it. Perhaps I'll make my own debate if you really don't want it here. "It is not true that the wording suggests anything about what the media want or does not want" Maybe so, but if the question does not suggest willingness to serve the public interest, it's certainly quite compatible with this dubious notion. I speak of rhetorical suggestiveness, not logical implication. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

One may create e.g. Does media exist to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests? (or different language if appropriate). To which I would ask: which media? Mainstream mass media? BBC? The Czech Television? All media? Some media? Most media? Most mainstream media? Most YouTube videos? Doing elementary plausibility checking is a responsibility of everyone who posts on a publicly accessible computer network, or the debate drowns in noise. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Consider wikipedia:Concentration of media ownership. One should also add google, reddit, wikimedia and the other large media platforms. One can no longer say that "mass media" is too broad a term to be meaningful. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So what media applies to the sentence? Where is the Wikidata item for your concept of "media"? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that Google search engine exists "to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests"? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Most mainstream news outlets essentially function to launder propaganda. Read Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. I'm not making anything up here. "Where is the Wikidata item for your concept of "media"?" I have no idea what you mean, but FYI your title "Does media exist to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests?" would not be my first, second or third choice, so let's drop that assumption if we're going to go farther here. I may not make any related debate, because I feel that the issue of "gun control" is ultimately an attempt to debase the second amendment and thereby deprive Americans of this essential liberty. I've already written a draft for an essay about the importance of 2A and I've made a few of the same arguments on the other relevant wikidebate, though the essay will be where I develop my unmolested argument. My only point here was that one should bear in mind that the media might not hide the names even if they know they should. This is hardly a wild idea, but if you don't care to have it here on your wikidebate then I will not insist. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I find it ideal for my conversation partners to answer my questions or respectfully decline to answer them, expressly. Pretending the questions were not heard or were not asked is something I find problematic. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Did I ever do those things? I did second-guess your question "Should media hide names of mass shooters?", which isn't a terrible one as far as wikidebate titles seem to go, but one shouldn't be too preoccupied with it, since the lack of integrity in mass media and lack of accountability in the government are far more hazardous problems and the media/government may not do what's right even if they know they ought to. Sometimes it's useful to question the context or assumptions of the argument. At any rate, you don't seem receptive, so I suppose that's all I'll say here. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(Outdent) Let's try again: Are you saying that Google search engine exists "to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests"? It is a yes-no question. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you meant it in reference to the questions you asked just before my latest reply. "Are you saying that Google search engine exists "to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests"?" They certainly seem to favor mainstream news and media in their search results. You might not see the information you're searching for or information that might be valuable if it doesn't show up in a search. Google also own youtube, which is a media website. "So what media applies to the sentence?" As I've said, most major media companies probably have ulterior motives. You and I had a back-and-forth about my essay, A Doylist Perspective on National Debt, but you never ended up telling me whether or not you find the latest revision convincing. I think I've addressed most of your questions there. Supposing you do find it convincing, how do you think such a status quo could come about if not for a complicit mass media? AP295 (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it a "yes"? Or is it a "kind of"? Something else? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems very likely, but you can draw your own conclusion. It would perhaps be more precise to speculate that their search results are biased, not that the search engine itself is a propaganda outlet, though it's splitting hairs.. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge semantic gap between "Google search results are biased" and "Google search engine exists to launder propaganda on behalf of moneyed interests". Semantics matters and the difference is not a matter of minor nuance. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Duly noted. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 10:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)