• calliope@retrolemmy.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 days ago

    Has anyone else noticed how the national media latched on to the phrase “mass shooting” as a way to get clicks?

    They realized how many people will click on anything labeled “mass shooting,” and adjusted accordingly. If it bleeds, it leads.

    • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      5 days ago

      are you referring to this article as an example? because doesn’t this article fit the bill? over a dozen people injured, four dead

      sure there’s maybe an argument over the threshold for duration of the event, but that’s surely enough victims, yeah?

      • calliope@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        I’m not talking about numbers.

        To me it’s telling that the national media completely ignored these types of targeted shootings until there was a way to market them.

        That’s quite weird to me! It’s like it’s national news until people just realize it was poor people fighting.

        • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 days ago

          ah, that makes sense. I thought you meant they were just attaching the phrase to as much as possible, on stuff they were already reporting. not adding more reports based on content type.

          can’t say I’ve noticed that, though, in the little I pay attention to msm

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      It’s inaccurate. 4 people have died, making it a mass murder. The other 10 mass shooting victims are then forgotten …or something.

      Edit: honestly, kids, that’s the term.