If you have "no place to go," come here!

To news-watching Correntians in swing states -- a favor?


... could any of y'all outside Colorado document here any hype you see about recent child abductions, after the party conventions?

I know I'm being too cynical by half, but the hype about a child's abduction (and, sadly, murder) has dominated news coverage out here since the first presidential debate, and now there's a second attempted abduction to cover, along with the memoral vigils for the deceased child. That means newscasts are mostly about threatened kids and campaign ads -- and they need the abduction hype to keep viewers from turning away from the ads.

(And no, I haven't gone around the bend -- Joe Miklosi's being attacked for voting down a variant of Jessica's Law, even though he voted for the final version of the bill -- child predation's on the attack ad menu.)

I am not a parent, so tell me how this hype actually keeps kids sane and safe?

However, i am a voter, and I'm suspicious of newsroom decisions that crowd out all the news other than the presidential election, especially with local races all but abandoned journalistically.

Just wondering how these rituals -- strangers wearing purple, letting go of balloons -- rituals Coloradans are becoming most practiced as enacting -- are helping us as an electorate that still might the power to fight these horrors through government measures other than the panopticon. Sheesh, even with my limited Criminal Minds and L&O training, the sponsoring of tip lines by local channels use more police resources than they're worth in producing usable leads, and Amber Alert propagation is the most effective tool in getting children get home. Anything else is corporately-profitable speculation and rumor that eventually assists predators to escape capture, through showing them what the police know, and what they don't.

I truly wish people didn't get kidnapped, assaulted and killed. But I also hate the clockworks that ensure local news agencies profit from it, to the exclusion of damn near everything else.


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

has nothing to do with protecting children. It's all about increasing viewership, or the ratings war.

As far as the newsroom decision to give local races short shrift, that is not uncommon in our neck of the woods. Our local media (TV and, to some extent, print media) amount to little more than "gossip columns." And they rather consistently cover nonsensical, trivial, or as in this case, heartbreaking and obviously newsworthy (within reason), but sensational events.

I regularly listen to a two-hour XM radio program called Press Pool, with Julie Mason. It is clear to me that corporate media is determined to give cover to politicians. This includes, but is not limited to "just not asking them any pertinent questions." It may be one reason for the lack of local coverage, since many politicians do not invite, nor welcome close scrutiny.

Just last week, several White House journalists actually openly discussed the fact that President Obama won't detail his plans to reform Social Security and Medicare, and defended it, saying, Heck, if he actually does that, he might just alienate his base before an election.

You might try to organize a last-ditch petition or call-in campaign. Good luck.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

that I as soon as the discussion was over, I "Binged" to see if The Press Pool had a stand-alone website. I found nothing, aside from its listing on the Sirius/XM Radio website, which is a couple of sentences. Link here.

If anyone else has more luck finding an actual show website, I'll search the material. The conversation was within the past two weeks. Obviously, Julie Mason participated in the conversation, but the other reporters were not household names. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific.

I make notes on a calendar when I hear this type of discussion on C-Span, radio, etc., for future reference if I'm able to find a transcript, video, etc., to substantiate it. This show has a lot of "off-the-cuff" conversation (actually, that's all it is), so I'm not totally shocked that they don't provide a transcript. LOL!

I honestly haven't heard a single reporter (most of the reporters are White House or Congressional reporters) who doesn't parrot the meme that it will be "catastrophic" if we go over the fiscal cliff. So, by extension, they (the ones that I've heard) all support cutting the social safety net programs.

It's sort of mind-boggling to me, since I would think that at least a few of these guys know some "regular people," who will be very adversely impacted by the cuts.