Yeah really. What is this garbage?

If this isn't a perfect example of the role of media in all this, then what is? I don't care what kind of media you are talking about. The main stream networks, print in all its forms or even Patch, the media has it's own agenda. That agenda is to sell whatever is the latest news which hits a nerve. They know what sells. In this case it is the emotional views of both sides of the gun issue. So, now that there are 300 comments between two articles they certainly see an advantage to keep it going by starting a third article.

I have to ask one simple question. Do we, as the media would have you believe, have a need or right to know everything in the news? The worst of human nature? How much of what we have seen in the carnage of the last year or so of mass murders would have there been if the media just had not given it the amount of coverage it got? How many copy cat versions would there have been? I suggest there would have been very few if any.

Whenever there are stories that highlight the worst of the human condition is where true journalism should prevail. Educated and informed decisions could limit the scope of coverage. It is only then we will see the end of the domino effect where the glorification of what is negative is stopped. The result would be a society uplifted & not constantly driven toward a malignant destructive alternative.

Bob, Nuitari, Rees: These kind of posts are something new that we're trying and are designed for Patch readers who may not have seen the original articles last week. Not everyone checks out sites every day, and these two stories -- which generated a lot of debate -- have long fallen off the home page but are still worth noting.

Mark Maley,

Your comment "These kind of posts are something new that we're trying and are designed for Patch readers who may not have seen the original articles last week." really does make my points even more emphatic. You would have to be living under a rock not to be exposed to the general theme of this issue whether that be from Patch or other media. So, why would you feel more exposure is needed? Maybe your next comment says it best.

Another comment of yours: "...these two stories -- which generated a lot of debate -- have long fallen off the home page but are still worth noting." also makes my point even more illustrative. Who benefits more? For who is it "worth noting?" Your readers who have been totally exposed on this subject or Patch who wants more exposure and potential ratings? Are you trying to do what other media outlets are doing by not letting an emotional story die?

Mark, you have made my points for me. Thank you.

I have a lot of "assault weapons": golf clubs, baseball bats, rocks, hammers, bricks, 2x4s, a Dodge van, etc. etc. Never occured to me to assault anyone with them.

Ever get hit with a golf club in your leg? Hurts like hell!

And we should be able to have rocket launchers incase a bad guy drives up in a tank. WOW

Of course the President wants to dis-arm Americans. It's the last big push of the Left so that they may unleash a reign of terror upon any who oppose them. Where is the outrage over Obama claiming the right to murder Americans?

The dichotomy is so striking - the Left demands that the Death Penalty be abolished, under the guise that the State shouldn't have the power to kill people, thus Society can't protect itself from criminals - YET - the State (Obama) targets Americans for assassination and murders them along with the resulting acceptable collateral damage and it's "all good".

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

"December 14, 2012, New York – Today, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued the following statement in response to U.S. officials’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the targeted killing of three U.S. citizens, including a 16-year-old boy, in Yemen last year:

"The essence of the government’s argument is that it has the authority to kill Americans not only in secret, but also without ever having to justify its actions under the Constitution in any courtroom. "

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-respond-motion-dismiss-due-process-challenge-killings-of-three-americans-u.s.-drone-st

Continued...

WHERE IS THE AUTHORITY FOR MURDER FOUND?

The president himself has acknowledged that the targeted killing program must be subject to more meaningful checks, but there is little evidence of that recognition in the brief filed by the government today. If the court accepts the government's position, it is not only the current president but every future president who will wield the power to kill any American he or she deems to present a threat to national security, without ever having to explain that action to a judge. The Constitution requires more.

“When a 16 year-old boy who has never been charged with a crime nor ever alleged to have committed a violent act is blown to pieces by U.S. missiles, alarm bells should go off,” said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Pardiss Kebriaei. “The U.S. program of sending drones into countries in and against which it is not at war and eliminating so-called enemies on the basis of executive memos and conference calls is illegal, out of control, and must end.”

IT MUST BE OK Because OBAMA = GOD.

http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-file-challenge-killings-of-three-americans-u.s.-drone-strikes

AND, now these same people want to dis-arm Americans....because, it would be for our own good, and they are here to help us.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Notice how that says 'arms' instead of 'guns'? Technically, 'arms' would include broadswords, morningstars, trebuchets, flamethrowers, nuclear devices, and my own personal killer-drone. And yet, we do regulate some of these.

Just thought I'd point that out.

SAVAIL -

The President, by Executive Order, Congress through laws and the Supreme Court through its various rulings can all limit the RIGHT... and they already have.

The other side of the coin on RIGHTS is RESPONSIBILITIES... I know most people are not really too high on the RESPONSIBILITY SIDE...

Further, no RIGHT is ABSOLUTE!

You have the RIGHT to LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS, and yet we put people in prison all the time, thus depriving them of both LIBERTY and HAPPINESS. I don't think that I need to remind you that the state also KILLS people, only they call it an EXECUTION...

Think about it...

Obama can justify his actions with a gun!

Obamanation! http://racine.craigslist.org/pol/3558544083.html

According to a Bloomberg report at the rate of 87 gun deaths a day, gun death will pass autos by 2015.. which will put them 2nd.only to abortion.

The Civilians and Children murdered by Obama through his Drone and targeted assassination program weren't added in either. THAT was no mistake. It is time to dis-arm governments - NOT people!

Body Count: Adam Lanza= 20 children

Barack Obama = 62+ Children *WINNING*

http://racine.craigslist.org/pol/3558525667.html

Though from August 2010 through August 2011, TBIJ documented at least 101 civilians, including13 children, were killed by drone strikes. Brennan also said from August 2010 through April 2012, the U.S. “had no information about a single civilian being killed.”

TBIJ found that at least 107 civilians, including at least 16 children, were killed by strikes in that time. Finally, in January 2012, President Obama --acknowledging
the CIA’s drone program for the first time -- said strikes do not causelarge amounts of civilian casualties. TBIJ finds that at the time of Obama’s statement, at least 284 civilians, and at least 62 children, had died from strikes sincehe came into office in January 2009. Similar statements downplaying the amount of civilian casualties have been made numerous times by unnamed government sources, according to
Living Under Drones.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/115147268/Youth-Disrupted-Effects-of-U-S-Drone-Strikes-on-Children-in-Targeted-Areas

Were these drone strikes in the U.S. ? When your at war,there is always inocent people killed. How many were killed in shock and awe?

UHM....well perhaps "senseless killings" needs a broader definition for you as to include those lost to domestic violence shootings, gang shootings, robbery and so on......just a thought.

@Richard Head

Wanna spit facts...spit both sides eh.

Stanford/ NYU study since 2004

FACT - Obama has ordered much more drone attacks then Bush. Obama civilian casaulty rate 2% Bush 33% SOURCE Stanford and NYU

Hmmm.Your Stats include 2004 which include Bush, which you fail to mention.

Funny no mention of Bush's targeted assassination. *cough*

Guess what -- these people are known for putting civilians intentionally in target areas and for setting up command in schools. These are the same monsters who strap a bomb to their back and walk into a coffee shop and blow up innocent people so they are are rewarded and family is taken care of. If Paki-land and Afghan etc would mop it's underworld of terrorists we would not have to be there!

And what does this have to with the topic Troll? *Flushes Toilet N Smirks*

Kathy - Obama is on his second term in office - It's time to focus on today.

TODAY - Obama begins his second term - can you focus on that? Blaming Bush needs to end.

I acknowledge Bush is also a war criminal. that does not justify Obama continuing to perpetrate those crimes using Bush as a justification.

Guess What - Obama is killing people in countries that we have no declared war against. There is no justification for what is being done. It's time to dis-arm the government and end illegal wars.

*Flushes Toilet N Smirks*

You think rather highly of yourself - don't you. HEY! Don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.

Richard-Osama didn't stay in afganistan, does that mean we shouldn't have gone after him?

@Richard Head

Drones and gun control? Who has an agenda here? My point was (is), you skewed the facts to drive an anti Obama post which is an irrelevant topic. It's called trolling. PS: I do not think highly of myself, just a tad snarky is all. *wink*

The war on guns will be the new war on drugs. You'll never get it off the streets and throw money down the drain trying to do so.

@ Nuitari
Exactly. Like everything with government a day late and too many dollars short --tax payer dollars short. Regan started the war on drugs. Hows that going? *chuckle* How about teen mommies, the school abstinence programs? heck, there's TV show now about them they all reality stars now *slaps leg* go figure. All money out the window, as a tax payer I should have a choice if I want to pay for the BS voted in. Sigh.

Your Zoo stock are up aren't they but your pants are still down.

Sorry Scott, again, I fail to find any relevance or solid thought in that comment.

Mr. Merlin, you are truly a candidate for the preverbal "Brooklyn Bridge", you can buy it real cheap!!! One doesn't have to say something to have it happen, but one's actions are truly revealing.

Richard, Can you answer the question?
Then please reveal the actions in question.
And try to do it without the snark.

Mr. Merlin, You now have your answer which was contained within the inaugural speech of yesterday. If you are unable to discern the actions of the person you evidently support without lint's then I can't help you. By the way you accuse me of being snarky what about your snap back response. and by the way I'll take truthfulness versus snake oil politics any day!

And it never will!!!!!!

Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful words, Tired Independent!

Michael,

Thanks for letting me clarify. I never said the media shouldn't report news. But cover the same specific news item continuously 24 hours a day for days, weeks, months? To emphasize it ad nauseam only benefits the media. Is that what kind of news you want? To constantly hear and see evil? I believe it is naive to think "...the news channels are merely reporting what's going on in the world." You may argue to change channels or something similar but today it is difficult to immunize yourself from this negative reporting. Think, for example, what our society would be like if the media emphasized the best of human nature instead of the worst. You could watch QVC, I suppose.

Blair, I totally agree with you. The First Amendment is extremely important and should be protected. But it should not be abused either. I hope my points have shown how the media is abusing it.

Mike G, I'm with your on protesting the media, they have been responsible for most all of what has happened to this country for the past 50 years or so, the trashing of the nuclear family, religion, traditions and customs that built this great country. They present a lopsided perspective of the news supporting any viewpoint that promotes liberal and progressivism while denigrating viewpoints that present an opposite point of view. The IBD editorial section over the past several weeks has presented a host of well thought articles in support of my words.

@Rees
I think the answer is obvious. Government is here so that citizens feel safe and happy. Media is I said, business. Just because the media reports news to you does make them responsible for your safety or happiness. People take the "lax" reporting personal. If you worked in media you know that part of the lax reporting comes from the spin masters, these are the PR people who speak in a tongue only the devil would understand. Now file a story,,,by deadline.

Media only cares about Profit!
Oh Puh-lease wake up folks. Business 101. No advertisers, No Business. In this day and age of social media media is under constant attack. Readers/Vieweres don't like something and a boycott. PRESTO - advertisers start pulling out. Who's the first to go? Account Execs, who usually work on commission.

Patch Biz Model?
Not familiar but free content has been a growing a trend on the net. I think when a news driven site is relying on readers for bulk of content it's probably a flawed business plan. I'd reach and say it's because no revenue being generated from local ads. In this economy it is very difficult to sell any small business real estate on the web. Just my opinion. I refused offer to write when I suggested a few local topics, if I'm going to spend my time thumping a creative neat clean piece, I prefer to get paid. :0) And on that note...I shall spend less time contributing my rants.

Kathy,

You eloquently shared your points. But noting that profit making businesses does not provide a check and balance except for an economic one. If they do not make a profit the check and balance puts them out of business. But when such a business has, as a fundamental basis of their purpose, the tools to communicate what citizens should know about, that is when it becomes tricky. Many assume that what the media shares is truth but as most of us know that is not always the case. One could argue that each one of us is the check and balance. But then we run the risk of a lack of consensus. Why do you suppose our elections are so close? Our media, in it's attempt to be "fair" will share both sides of an issue no matter if the issues are clear. When our politics say the sky is blue and the other side says no it's not, we are in trouble. But that is what is occurring these days. Media outlets now have left and right outlets. In my opinion, this is so wrong. The media should be blind and just report the facts. Journalism was that way when I was younger. So, that is why I asked who provides the check and balances for the media. Just knowing the basics of business does not protect our constitutional rights. That is why I asked the question and why I fear how the future will evolve. I pray we just get along and try to understand each other. We have more in common than not.

@Rees
" Just knowing the basics of business does not protect our constitutional rights. "

Well ain't that a mouthful! Allow me to play devil advocate please? That McRib I mentioned earlier, how about my rights there? That is not a rib! That sauce hardly qualifies as BBQ sauce yet Mcdees laughs all the way to the bank. Okay silly example I agree. You are confusing Government's purpose of creating a safe and happy place for citizens and Media's use of the second amendment as an abuse of you're constitutional rights.

I'm a channel flipper and when a breaking story I will flip from CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc etc it is almost sadly comical the "breaking News" tickers. I keep waiting for one of em to interview the dog for eyewitness accounts, everyone else seems to be interviewed including the shooters grade school classmate who had no contact for 15 years -- oh the desperation of ANY story line. *chuckle*

I feel ya and understand what ya mean honestly. I left the broadcast sector shortly after 911. I got stuck in production booth and watched "lunar" feeds disappear right after FCC warnings. Things that make ya go hmmm. I watch BBC for US national news now. Go figure. Namaste

Mark Maley, regional manager of Patch.com for the Milwaukee area:

Can you confirm what Bob McBride said above? If this is true this is about the worst thing I could imagine. Please tell me my worst fears are not going to occur. Please tell me that Patch will change its policy of allowing people to Blog anonymously. Otherwise, the entire Patch 2.0 upgrade has the potential of creating even more irresponsible comments from those hiding behind their fictitious names. Please tell me Patch will be changing their policy to demand people use their real name. Otherwise we will potentially see more harm done to our communities all across this good nation of ours due to Patch relying more on anonymously produced content.

Rees:

Have you read the kinds of blogs that Patch allows people to publish under their real names? I don't think we are going to find things too far worse with people blogging under their 'Patch names'...

CD, when you wrote that piece, it had to be approved by the local editor prior to it going "live", correct?

Bob:

I seem to recall that I had to submit it and then it was published a bit later. I assume that the local editor (or some Patch entity) had checked it over to make sure that it complies with the Patch Terms of Service and/or didn't contain any offensive content before it was allowed to be published.

We have seen published blogs that did violate the Patch Terms of Service though--so I don't know how thoroughly or consistently they are checked by Patch staff...

...but that being said, the Patch local editor that presumably would have approved the offensive blog doesn't seem to be in that position anymore. I'm hoping that having fewer editors might bring more consistency and help increase the overall quality of the blogs being published.

@ Steve
By all means then you have the choice not to view that news source. I personally find it entertaining, but I read all points of view and form oh-pinions because actually the right and left both pose good points.

Good story.

I wonder, how high would unemployment be if there were none? I wonder, how many more murders would there have been in the USA as a result? One can speculate the: What Ifs, all day long regarding this topic. Since the beginning of time and until time expires, we all shall have to make decisions in life; some that we do not want to make, but none the less we must do what we and we ourselves only, feel is the right thing. I believe the only person one is to judge, is themselves. Until one is perfect, they should focus on themselves. I highly doubt any one of us will achieve that goal in our lifetime. I highly doubt there are many if any that are proud of making that difficult decision.