Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Just a quick rant...

  1. #1
    Giants2010champs

    Default Just a quick rant...

    I heared it on the news today and couldn't believe it. Man shot and killed downtown . Susepect caught while wearing a diaper. WHAT?? could you please repeat that? They said it on live tv! Why was it so important that he was wearing a diaper? If the diaper had absolutley nothing to do with him killing a guy why did they have to mention it? I understand and publicity with diapers is a bad thing but i was apalled that she said that. It makes me mad that they have to say that when really it didn't effect the murder what so ever! What do you guys think of it?

  2. #2

    Default

    I agree if it bared no relevance to the the murder they shouldn't have mentioned it

  3. #3

    Default

    they say things like this to give the shock factor and because its not "normal" people will automatically think he has mental issues... its this kind of thing that gives *b/DL's a bad image.

  4. #4

    Default

    Assuming they mentioned it because he wasn't wearing pants, I have to disagree.

    We are obviously sensitive to any bad being associated with diapers, but mentioning it in this case seems reasonable. It's something that's not normal to most people, and as such makes it interesting. It's an abnormal activity to murder someone while clad in a diaper. It's like back when someone held up a store with a Klingon batleth. They _could_ just report that person x broke into store y, but it's the batleth that makes that story different.

    If he was wearing pants, then yeah, shouldn't have mentioned it.

  5. #5

    Default

    way back when the government didn't regulate the news, it was non profit, so they could talk about the weather and suzy smith winning the spelling bee. but eventually news stations we told that they need to hold an audience in order to keep their frequencies. so now they churn out cookie cutter stories about people getting murdered and raped and peppering it with insignificant details for shock value, all to keep people afraid to leave their house and to keep them glued to their chair with a with gas masks and shotguns all huddled around the evening news waiting to hear whos kneecaps to blow off.

    now you got some nut cake who parked himself on top of a building shooting cops and black people, and what do they do? put it on the news!

    "thank you tom, know one really knows why this decent family man turned into a homicidal maniac, but studies show that it is caused by the brain damage frm living next door to a gay atheist African American murder convict!"

    -doesn't like the news >.< -

  6. #6
    markie97

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BoundCoder View Post
    If he was wearing pants, then yeah, shouldn't have mentioned it.
    Exactly what I was thinking.
    It's pretty strange to catch a guy with a gun and only a diaper

  7. #7

    Default

    Why's it such a big deal that he's wearing a diaper? Just like any other underwear.


    -G

  8. #8

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkywuff View Post
    way back when the government didn't regulate the news, it was non profit, so they could talk about the weather and suzy smith winning the spelling bee. but eventually news stations we told that they need to hold an audience in order to keep their frequencies. so now they churn out cookie cutter stories about people getting murdered and raped and peppering it with insignificant details for shock value, all to keep people afraid to leave their house and to keep them glued to their chair with a with gas masks and shotguns all huddled around the evening news waiting to hear whos kneecaps to blow off.

    now you got some nut cake who parked himself on top of a building shooting cops and black people, and what do they do? put it on the news!

    "thank you tom, know one really knows why this decent family man turned into a homicidal maniac, but studies show that it is caused by the brain damage frm living next door to a gay atheist African American murder convict!"

    -doesn't like the news >.< -
    At the risk of sounding really rude, WOW do you have your history wrong there!

    Legally, the broadcast spectrum is considered public (administered by the government) property, and until the Reagan administration, broadcasters had a whole set of onerous standards they had to follow. Anyone working in a television station had to be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. The stations had to identify themselves and their frequency at least once per hour at the top of the hour. Stations had to offer the opportunity for those of differing viewpoints to have their voice heard (not equal time as is commonly believed). And, most importantly, the content had to be deemed to be in the interest of the public, the very same public that legally owned the airwaves on which the content was being broadcast. Obviously the broadcasters wanted to make money, and there was no prohibition against them doing so. They just had regulations within which they had to operate.

    Reagan's FCC started, and Clinton's finished, the deregulation of the broadcast industry and the weakening of the FCC. Rules regulating how many media outlets in how many markets could be owned by one company were dramatically relaxed, allowing for the consolidation of media under a few corporate owners. The standards regarding the public good were basically changed into standards to make media owners as much money as possible, the public be damned. Differing viewpoints became of no concern whatsoever.

    That deregulation is what's led us to the media landscape we find today, where a few megacorporations own all the media, radio, newspapers, television, and Internet, where stations spout whatever gibberish gets ratings, and where the public interest was sacrificed in favor of propaganda.

    For the record, cable television has never been subject to FCC regulation. Legally, any cable channel could and can air whatever they want, including offensive language or sexual content. Most opt to follow guidelines that largely mirror the broadcast standards to avoid alienating audiences.

    Also also for the record, the public's (again, as administered by the government) ownership of the broadcast airwaves spectrum is what compelled the development of HDTV. Cell providers and other media had begun encroaching on the spectrum used for emergency communications (police/fire/EMT radio), and the government wanted to free up spectrum space. Analog TV was in prime spectrum, so it was a great space to free up by mandating that broadcasters adopt HDTV and lose their analog frequency space.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10

    Default

    I was going to simply say, that what sparkywuff said is actually the reverse and that if anything the government exerted much more control over television in the past than they do today.

    I also can't believe you typed that all on your iPhone, crazy!

Similar Threads

  1. A quick hello
    By Glaice in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-Mar-2011, 18:54
  2. Quick one...
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 03-Jun-2010, 18:12
  3. Quick Hello
    By Lucos in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16-Feb-2010, 08:02
  4. Profanity. (Kind of a rant, kind of.... not a rant)
    By Boogeyman in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-Oct-2008, 15:52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.