Don't eat, don't sleep, because we are coming after you
chibiabos
STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
Runnion.
Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona said the nude body was found Tuesday
in adjacent Riverside, 75 miles from Samantha' home in Stanton.
Investigators think that the girl was sexually assaulted and that a
serial attacker committed the crime, Carona said.
The cause of death has not been determined, Carona said.
"There was some trauma to the body," which was found in plain view, he
said. "We believe he wanted us to find the body, and it was a calling
card for future activity." Carona warned that the kidnapper could
strike again "within the next 24 hours."
He also issued a warning to the attacker. "Don't eat, don't sleep,
because we are coming after you," Carona said.
Carona asked the public to report anyone whose behavior might suggest
involvement in the crime. Possible clues, he said, include someone
deciding to stow a car, shaving off facial hair; trying to sell a car,
having unexplained absences or new injuries for which there is no
reasonable explanation.
Carona said a $50,000 reward was being offered for information about
Samantha's abduction and murder.
Samantha was taken just before 7 p.m. Monday from an apartment complex
in what Carona described as a "low-crime" neighborhood in Stanton, just
west of Anaheim, where she was being taken care of by her grandmother.
According to police, the man approached Samantha and her 5-year-old
friend Sarah Ahn, asking them to help him find a puppy. While
Samantha's playmate shied away from the query, Samantha showed some
interest and was grabbed by the suspect.
Samantha "screamed and yelled and created a disturbance," as neighbors
from a distance saw the man forcing her into the vehicle before driving
away, said Lt. Hayward Miller of the sheriff's department.
Police immediately began a search of the neighborhood, using
helicopters and bloodhounds, but were unsuccessful in finding the girl.
Most of the best information about the abduction, including a
description of the man who took Samantha and details about his car,
came from Sarah Ahn, whom Corona said has been "magnificent" in
providing details.
Her abductor is described as a Hispanic male, 25 to 40 years old, with
black hair combed back and a thin, black mustache. He was wearing a
powder blue button-down shirt.
Police are looking for a two-door, light green car with chrome wheels.
Because Sarah said there was an "H" on the back of it, Carona said it
may be a Honda or an Acura.
The city of Stanton established the reward fund. BP Amoco, the mother's
employer, donated $50,000, and more donations are expected, the sheriff
said.
--------------
I want that guy for myself. I have some interesting tools in my
workshop that I want to introduce him to. It'll be a "no-charge" job.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
Jake
Yeah. I'm not normally a bloodthirsty type but that line about "a
blowtorch and some pliers" comes easily to mind.
Jeremy Martin
wrote:
>STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
>found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
>Runnion.
So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
sensationalism.
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"HIS PICTURE IS A PURE REPRESENTATION OF FAILURE IN PICTORIAL FORM."
- Bobby, SA Forums
flang
coverage.
"Jeremy Martin" <myn...@yourchin.com> wrote in message
news:ssrbju491k2kle74o...@4ax.com...
chibiabos
<myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:46:52 -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com>
> wrote:
>
> >STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
> >found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
> >Runnion.
>
> So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
> Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
> sensationalism.
You realize, of course, that Elizabeth Smart wasn't the first. (In
fact, her story was almost lost in the media noise. It didn't become
the lead story until nearly five days after her abduction. I first saw
it on page 6 of my local paper, where it got a whole 2 inches of column
space.)
I personally believe that every child-abduction should be on the front
page and lead story of every newspaper and news program in the nation
until the child is found and/or the abductors caught and removed from
society.
The one above is particularly heinous. The guy who did this clearly had
only one purpose in mind: to use the girl for a few minutes then kill
her. Initial indications from the crime scene suggest that he's a
serial rapist/killer, and will do this again.
It's only sensationalism unless it's your child he's after, I guess.
LP
wrote:
>If your child were to be kidnapped I am sure you wouldn't complain about the
>coverage.
I would, if after they found the body, every station was describing
details of the condition of the body, and as much information as they
could get about the autopsy.
This information serves no purpose other than to get high rating.
The sensationalized coverage of these events are way out of sync with
the actual risk. Why don't they have national coverage on drunk
driving related fatalities, or childhood diabetes, which claim the
lives of far more children?
Whirl_pool
#1439
stillsunny
<myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:46:52 -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com>
>wrote:
>
>>STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
>>found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
>>Runnion.
>
>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>sensationalism.
I don't like sensationalism, either.
But, like advertising, the media provides something we both hate, and
need -- information.
If a child is abducted, people need to know, and they need to know as
much about it as they can, as quick as they can, in case they see the
fellow or can help. They also need to know there's a madman about so
they are alerted to take extra precautions with their own children.
Once they know, they're emotionally vested, so printing the outcome is
obvious -- I don't want to wonder where the child is, and if the child
is harmed, I still need to be alerted until the perpetrator is caught.
So yeah, you could probably put it down to sensationalism, if you
wanted to. It is, however, more useful information than the average
story about baseball strikes or the sexual exploits of politicians or
warnings of yet another (non-event) alert of a possible terrorist
bombing.
I want this man _gone_.
Sunny
Bill Thacker
stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:30:06 -0500, Jeremy Martin
><myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
>
>>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>>sensationalism.
>
>much about it as they can, as quick as they can, in case they see the
>fellow or can help.
The problem with that explanation is that it should apply to
every crime, or at least, every murder. Instead, it only applies
to the murders of cute people. (There's an Onion story on this,
about a fat, homely girl who gets murdered and nobody cares.)
I have to agree with Jeremy; this strikes me as overkill
and unfair. Sure, if your child were kidnapped you'd be happy for
all the media attention you can get. But how would you feel if,
like most cases of missing children, the media ignored your child
after going to such lengths for these others? I think that
would suck.
And I'm trying to remember seeing one of those media blitzes about
a black or hispanic child, or the child of parents who didn't bawl
in front of the camera about their faith in God, or parents willing
to say, "Maybe my daughter wouldn't have been the victim of a
copycat crime if you TV news vultures hadn't made such a big deal
about the original". There's something very narcissistic in these
reports, and they have a propaganda-like stink that bothers me.
>So yeah, you could probably put it down to sensationalism, if you
>wanted to. It is, however, more useful information than the average
>story about baseball strikes or the sexual exploits of politicians or
>warnings of yet another (non-event) alert of a possible terrorist
>bombing.
I don't see how you can say that. I might have $5 riding on the
next Reds game, and that affects my life infinitely more than a
dead child - or a score of them - in California. Even if I had
kids. In terms of safety, I'd be better served by yet another
nagging reminder about drunk driving or dealing with aggressive
motorists.
Consider this: if every American spends one minute looking for this
killer, that's about 500 person-years of effort, and roughly 99.7% of
them are bound to be looking in the wrong place (assuming 1 million
people are actually close enough to the killer to have a prayer of
finding him). Since their only clues are the color of the car and
that it's either a Honda or an Accura, it stands to reason that
there will be hundreds or thousands of false leads, some of which
will injure the person falsely accused by forcing him to answer
police questions and impugning his name. How much harm does "breeding
needless distrust of your neighbor" cause?
I don't think these events make the news because it's useful to
broadcast them. I think they make the news because these
tragedies grab people by their emotions and squeeze tight,
preventing them from changing the channel. They're broadcast
because they're entertaining, in a coercive way.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker BAAWA Knight, Atheist #1363 bi...@woods-car.com
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.woods-car.com
Director of the EAC Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Fast Cars,
and Pornography.
"Be nice to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas."
Jim Versluys, editor, The Texas Mercury
Jeremy Martin
wrote:
>If your child were to be kidnapped I am sure you wouldn't complain about the
>coverage.
No, but the media sensationalism over it has been rather annoying.
Yesterday, one of the Fox morons (either O'Reilly or Hannity) said
that they were scared for their children because of these past two
incidents, as most parents are.
Hello? This happens way the hell more often, but it isn't reported on
the big news sources.
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"I don't think I'm making a sweeping generalization here when I claim that all Goths are retarded morons who should be chucked into an empty grave."
- Lowtax, Something Awful
Jeremy Martin
wrote:
>> >STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
>> >found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
>> >Runnion.
>>
>> So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>> Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>> sensationalism.
>
>You realize, of course, that Elizabeth Smart wasn't the first. (In
>fact, her story was almost lost in the media noise. It didn't become
>the lead story until nearly five days after her abduction. I first saw
>it on page 6 of my local paper, where it got a whole 2 inches of column
>space.)
I *know* she's not the first. This is why I find it ridiculous that
they have been using these stories for ratings.
>I personally believe that every child-abduction should be on the front
>page and lead story of every newspaper and news program in the nation
>until the child is found and/or the abductors caught and removed from
>society.
And you do realize that would be a ridiculous thing to try and pull
off, I hope. If this was the case, there would be nothing but stories
about missing children, considering that there are more than just two
missing in the nation. They would lose their ratings and readerships.
They wouldn't be able to capitalize on a missing child, and it would
lose its sensationalism.
>The one above is particularly heinous. The guy who did this clearly had
>only one purpose in mind: to use the girl for a few minutes then kill
>her. Initial indications from the crime scene suggest that he's a
>serial rapist/killer, and will do this again.
Yep. They should catch the bastard.
But tell me what was so different about this kidnapping case from many
others, that they had to report the girl missing on *national* news
services after she was kidnapped? Do you think it was some kind of
special method the kidnapper used? No. It's about the media wanting
ratings. They want a "news alert." Bush's war isn't giving them the
exciting stories anymore.
>It's only sensationalism unless it's your child he's after, I guess.
I don't see how you can say that, considering that I've hinted at
nothing of the source. Don't try and put words in my mouth.
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"I'm losing a game of reality dice where the dealer never pays..."
- Stone Temple Pilots, "Where the River Goes"
Jeremy Martin
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>>>STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
>>>found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
>>>Runnion.
>>
>>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>>sensationalism.
>
>I don't like sensationalism, either.
>But, like advertising, the media provides something we both hate, and
>need -- information.
>
>If a child is abducted, people need to know, and they need to know as
>much about it as they can, as quick as they can, in case they see the
>fellow or can help. They also need to know there's a madman about so
>they are alerted to take extra precautions with their own children.
>Once they know, they're emotionally vested, so printing the outcome is
>obvious -- I don't want to wonder where the child is, and if the child
>is harmed, I still need to be alerted until the perpetrator is caught.
What we need is a system such as the one use in Elizabeth Smart's
area, where the *local* media is alerted every time a child is
abducted. They have had a large amount of success with it.
I don't necessarily have a problem with Elizabeth Smart's
disappearance being made national news, unless they are doing
something as ridiculous as spending hours of air-time speculating.
But I *do* have a problem with this California girl's disappearance
made public. It was an attempt by the media to go in and capitalize on
the girl's disappearance.
Did I *really* need to hear about this girl's disappearance on local
news? No, because she never even left California. She's dead. I can
also guarantee you that the media giants clasped their hands like
greedy vultures on news of her death, because they can then get right
back to even more sensationalism. You know, the normal: "Our children
are in danger everywhere!"
>So yeah, you could probably put it down to sensationalism, if you
>wanted to. It is, however, more useful information than the average
>story about baseball strikes or the sexual exploits of politicians or
>warnings of yet another (non-event) alert of a possible terrorist
>bombing.
They know that *exact* same thing, Sunny--except they don't consider
it useful information, but rather a more "exciting" news items to help
drive their ratings.
>I want this man _gone_.
Agreed.
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil ignorance."
- Socrates
LP
<myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:45:16 GMT, "flang" <l.la...@verizon.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If your child were to be kidnapped I am sure you wouldn't complain about the
>>coverage.
>
>No, but the media sensationalism over it has been rather annoying.
>
>Yesterday, one of the Fox morons (either O'Reilly or Hannity) said
>that they were scared for their children because of these past two
>incidents, as most parents are.
>
>Hello? This happens way the hell more often, but it isn't reported on
>the big news sources.
Here is something that gets little coverage on national news, but it
is a far greater risk to children than being abducted by a stranger.
Unfortunately, abductions are far more exciting to read about, which
leaves little time to cover stories about those things that are a much
greater danger to kids.
from:
http://family.go.com/raisingkids/child/dev/expert/dony0200faguns/dony0200faguns.html
GUN FACTS
The least-talked-about concern parents must confront today is safety
from guns. In his book PROTECTING THE GIFT, Gavin De Becker reveals
some harsh statistics:
• Every day about 75 American children are shot. Most recover--15 do
not.
• Twenty thousand guns enter the mainstream of commerce each day.
• The chance of a child being shot is 250 times greater than the
chance of a child being abducted by a stranger.
• The likelihood is great that your child will play in the homes of
people who own guns.
Read on to learn how to protect your child from guns, whether in your
own house or in the homes of friends and relatives.
http://family.go.com/raisingkids/child/dev/expert/dony0200faguns/dony0200faguns.html
Whirl_pool
#1439
stillsunny
wrote:
>In article <rqlcju4m9ctngbs8i...@4ax.com>,
>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:30:06 -0500, Jeremy Martin
>><myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>>>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>>>sensationalism.
>>
>>If a child is abducted, people need to know, and they need to know as
>>much about it as they can, as quick as they can, in case they see the
>>fellow or can help.
>
>The problem with that explanation is that it should apply to
>every crime, or at least, every murder. Instead, it only applies
>to the murders of cute people. (There's an Onion story on this,
>about a fat, homely girl who gets murdered and nobody cares.)
By the opposite reasoning, no murder, kidnapping, or other instance of
violent crime should be reported, except as cumulative or statistical
numbers, as it's obviously impossible to give full coverage to each.
There are the statistics, and there are the individual stories. The
stories, however sensationalistic, keep us reminded that behind each
of the numbers is a live human person and a real human trauma, whether
it's the death of an individual Israeli or Palestinian infant, a story
of one woman's life 'behind the veil" under the Taliban, or a black
man dragged to his death behind a truck. Propaganda, narcissism,
profit -- all present in each one. Cumulatively, a reminder of the
human element present in all circumstances.
<snip, only because I just read someone griping about bandwidth>
>I don't think these events make the news because it's useful to
>broadcast them. I think they make the news because these
>tragedies grab people by their emotions and squeeze tight,
>preventing them from changing the channel. They're broadcast
>because they're entertaining, in a coercive way.
Years ago, when my sister was eight or nine, in our peaceful, middle
class neighborhood, a man approached her while she was walking, pulled
a knife on her, and told her he wouldn't hurt her if she got in the
car with him. Fortunately, my sister ran like hell.
My mother had to vehemently harass the local newspaper to even get a
story run on it. It was a small, one paragraph column, buried inside
the newspaper, because the city's "image" is that of a family friendly
vacation spot, and news like that is bad for business, overall -- and
the newspaper was (and remains) firmly tied to local business
magnates. As far as the paper was concerned, there *was* no bad news
in my town.
As far as I know, the man hasn't been caught. Certainly, despite my
sister's rather detailed description of him and his vehicle, he was
never caught for _that_ incident. Cynic that I am, I'm inclined to
doubt that the one instance was an isolated thing for him, and that
upon being unsuccessful, he repented his ways and never tried anything
like it again.
However I might feel about whether it should have been more widely
reported or not, in both cases (my sister's and the Runnion girl) the
decision was made for financial reasons. News outlets are, first and
foremost, business enterprises.
Information is information. I readily grant that what is newsworthy
(and therefore likely to increase circulation) is often dependent on
the known emotional response to the information. I can't see that
that's a negative, in isolation. It _is_ news, precisely because
we're emotionally interested in it, whether it's because we have a
particular fondness for a sports team, a monetary interest in the
stock market, or an empathetic human response to a tragedy.
I also don't think there's an easy delineation between exploitive
profiteering on the pain of others, feeding a prurient interest, and
reporting for idealistic, altruistic, or real human interest reasons.
It's more of a spectrum, I think, and what you see as overly
sensationalistic, I may see as reporting of a story I'm interested in.
Tell me Jon Benet Ramsey is over the line, and I'll agree. Tell me
that following the story of a little girl picked up out of her front
yard is over the line, and right now, four days later, I really don't.
Perhaps I'm just feeling defensive. I don't watch TV, don't read
"People" magazine, don't gawk at accidents, and try not to gossip.
Implicit in a condemnation of the media for their reasons for choosing
a story is an indictment of those who drive the market they're
catering to. I've been choked up more than once with respect to this
story, and I guess I don't want to feel guilty for even having been
interested enough to read and respond to it.
Sunny
stillsunny
<myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:58:22 -0400, stillsunny
><sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
>>>>found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
>>>>Runnion.
>>>
>>>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>>>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>>>sensationalism.
>>
>>I don't like sensationalism, either.
>>But, like advertising, the media provides something we both hate, and
>>need -- information.
<snip>
>Did I *really* need to hear about this girl's disappearance on local
>news? No, because she never even left California. She's dead.
In the first place, that wasn't known to be the case when the news
first came out.
In the second place, I can make that same argument about every
nationally reported murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, stalking,
abuse, lynching, or other heinous crime. We don't really need to hear
about any of it.
>I can
>also guarantee you that the media giants clasped their hands like
>greedy vultures on news of her death, because they can then get right
>back to even more sensationalism. You know, the normal: "Our children
>are in danger everywhere!"
Do you understand that I do can agree with your assessment of the
motives, say I often find reporters often horribly vulture-like in
their pursuit of a lead, concede that hysteria is the general mob
response to this sort of thing, and still say I think it was a
newsworthy story?
>>So yeah, you could probably put it down to sensationalism, if you
>>wanted to. It is, however, more useful information than the average
>>story about baseball strikes or the sexual exploits of politicians or
>>warnings of yet another (non-event) alert of a possible terrorist
>>bombing.
>
>They know that *exact* same thing, Sunny--except they don't consider
>it useful information, but rather a more "exciting" news items to help
>drive their ratings.
This is going to sound smart alecky, and I don't mean it to, so please
take it with a grain of salt. I can't think of another way to put it.
Would you prefer that the news media were non-profit?
Sunny
Jake
What's different:
the vast majority of missing kids are 'abductions' by one parent or the
other in a custody dispute. This detail is often omitted in the stats. A
great many of the rest are runaways (kids 12+).
What makes this case different is a 5-year-old getting snatched in broad
daylight while her playmate watches in horror. That's rare. That's
newsworthy. I think all the cases of stranger abduction should get wide
coverage because, among other things, these monsters are almost always
serial offenders.
In principle and in practice, there's a huge difference between the
Manson murders and a drunk driver causing a traffic fatality. One of
them deserves wide press coverage.
Bill Thacker
stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2002 13:41:59 GMT, w...@cbemi.cb.lucent.com (Bill Thacker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rqlcju4m9ctngbs8i...@4ax.com>,
>>stillsunny <sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 17:30:06 -0500, Jeremy Martin
>>><myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>>>>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>>>>sensationalism.
>>>
>>>If a child is abducted, people need to know, and they need to know as
>>>much about it as they can, as quick as they can, in case they see the
>>>fellow or can help.
>>
>>The problem with that explanation is that it should apply to
>>every crime, or at least, every murder. Instead, it only applies
>>to the murders of cute people. (There's an Onion story on this,
>>about a fat, homely girl who gets murdered and nobody cares.)
>
>By the opposite reasoning, no murder, kidnapping, or other instance of
>violent crime should be reported, except as cumulative or statistical
>numbers, as it's obviously impossible to give full coverage to each.
No; it's just that we must understand that the things we see reported
on TV are not typical, not representative, and not an indicator of
risk. The incidents we see on TV are those chosen for entertainment
value.
I probably make too much of this, but dang it, I'm an engineer. I
hate seeing statistics warped, and human perception naturally does
warp even fair observations. If I tell you ten facts, you will
remember the first and last far more than the ones in between.
It's just how our mind receives and registers data.
So it bothers me deep in my psyche when I see the news media report
very exceptional cases, giving them lots of airtime, then see how
the public overreacts. The media is simply presenting an interesting
story, but the viewer naturally assumes it's an IMPORTANT story.
Mistake #1.
Then, there's the feedback loop. Every year some kids would take guns
to school and shoot someone. Inner city schools have used metal
detectors for decades; it's not a new problem. They were rarely
reported outside the local papers. Then came Columbine (actually,
IIRC there were one or two before that, I can't recall), a big
story that got tons of national coverage and grabbed our nation
by the endocrine system. The media, based on the overwhelming
feedback, naturally began promoting every other school shooting,
stories they would have previously ignored. The public perception:
there's an epidemic of school shootings, something's broke, it's
a crisis, and something, anything, has to be done. Instant panic,
and a legislator's delight. Road rage was another example.
This really bothers me, because now you have the entire nation
reacting irrationally, with know understanding of the statistics.
It's wasteful, in that small problems get too much attention;
dangerous, in that bigger problems get ignored entirely; and
a threat to freedom, since these events are perceived as crises
and too many people are willing to give up liberties in time of crisis.
It's not that I think anyone's evil here. It's just a media,
which makes money by pandering to people, in a vicious feedback loop
with its audience, as bottom-feeding politicians lurk nearby
ready to strike at the weakest moment.
>Information is information.
Yes; but the issue here is perception, and perception is not
perception. I can present the same information to a focus group
in three different ways and get three different reactions. To
me, as an engineer, that makes me responsible for presenting
information fairly, honestly, and rationally. The news media
increasingly shirk that responsibility.
Consider how different it might be if, at the conclusion of a
segment on this poor girl, the reporter added, "Based on FBI
statistics there is only a 1/100,000 chance of any particular
child being kidnapped, and 70% of the time they survive the
experience. Nationwide, kidnapping of children has been
declinign steadily since 1988 and is at its lowest level since 1945."
It might put parents more at ease - without reducing sympathy
for the victim - and allow our national policy to be determined
in cool reason.
stillsunny
wrote:
Okay. I have to confess (and I might have mentioned), I'm at a
disadvantage. I don't watch TV at all, and that's one of the reasons.
There's what is, and there's spin.
So I may well be talking out of my hat. I don't _know_ what the full
media coverage of this story is. All I do know is that this child was
taken, and in simplest terms, that seems newsworthy to me. In other
words, I found it contained information that added to the data I draw
from in how I respond to the world, to include not only remembering
that there are some bad guys out there, but also that people go
through horrible things that I often never know about. I'm also aware
that most kids aren't kidnapped or attacked, though I'm a fairly
cautious mother, so I'm not likely to get hysterical about this event.
I did get very upset about it, though.
A great irony hit me, even as I was responding to you earlier. There
was a discussion some time back about a show that was going to air a
murder -- some camera in a prison had captured a fellow being stabbed
some 70 times (IIRC). In that instance, I was vehemently and
passionately opposed to it, despite having not seen it, to the point
that I had to disengage from the conversation because Andrew Lias, who
I think is one of the top ten best humans in America, disagreed with
me.
>I probably make too much of this, but dang it, I'm an engineer. I
>hate seeing statistics warped, and human perception naturally does
>warp even fair observations. If I tell you ten facts, you will
>remember the first and last far more than the ones in between.
>It's just how our mind receives and registers data.
As a matter of curiosity, and granting that TV especially is prone to
play to that very trait, how responsible is a reporter in _any_ for
how what s/he reports is received?
And is it fair to say you don't object to the news, but the
presentation?
<snip of stuff I actually agree with>
You might be interested in this. I found it very good.
Sunny
Jeremy Martin
<sun...@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
>>>>>STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
>>>>>found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
>>>>>Runnion.
>>>>
>>>>So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
>>>>Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
>>>>sensationalism.
>>>
>>>I don't like sensationalism, either.
>>>But, like advertising, the media provides something we both hate, and
>>>need -- information.
>
><snip>
>
>>Did I *really* need to hear about this girl's disappearance on local
>>news? No, because she never even left California. She's dead.
>
>In the first place, that wasn't known to be the case when the news
>first came out.
No, but this also wasn't such an extraordinary, to me, that I feel it
deserved nation-wide coverage. A girl was abducted, molested, and
murdered. Does it sound like I'm being cold? Probably. It's just how I
feel about it.
Then again, if what Jake said about how this is more rare of an
occurrence than the statistics imply are true, than my opinion on this
matter will definitely change.
They had a "nice" clip of a hysterical mother to add to their
sensationalist presentation of the story. I wouldn't be surprised if
that was a big factor in running the story in itself.
>In the second place, I can make that same argument about every
>nationally reported murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, stalking,
>abuse, lynching, or other heinous crime. We don't really need to hear
>about any of it.
It depends on how many of them actually happen. Do I think every
instance requires attention? Yes. Do I think they all warrant national
attention? Of course not. The people local to the area should be
aware. Why should I be?
I mean, why aren't I being made aware of a girl that has been
kidnapped, murdered, and raped in, say.. Beijing? Moscow?
>>I can
>>also guarantee you that the media giants clasped their hands like
>>greedy vultures on news of her death, because they can then get right
>>back to even more sensationalism. You know, the normal: "Our children
>>are in danger everywhere!"
>
>Do you understand that I do can agree with your assessment of the
>motives, say I often find reporters often horribly vulture-like in
>their pursuit of a lead, concede that hysteria is the general mob
>response to this sort of thing, and still say I think it was a
>newsworthy story?
Sure, I can understand that.
>>>So yeah, you could probably put it down to sensationalism, if you
>>>wanted to. It is, however, more useful information than the average
>>>story about baseball strikes or the sexual exploits of politicians or
>>>warnings of yet another (non-event) alert of a possible terrorist
>>>bombing.
>>
>>They know that *exact* same thing, Sunny--except they don't consider
>>it useful information, but rather a more "exciting" news items to help
>>drive their ratings.
>
>This is going to sound smart alecky, and I don't mean it to, so please
>take it with a grain of salt. I can't think of another way to put it.
>
>Would you prefer that the news media were non-profit?
Nah, it doesn't sound anything like that, Sunny. Coming from you, I
definitely wouldn't think it would even without the warning. ;)
I don't think that turning the news media into non-profit
organizations would change a whole lot, really. People would still try
to use them to push their agendas while maintaining guises such as
"fair and balanced."
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"Surrealism is destructive, but it destroys only what it considers to be shackles limiting our vision."
- Salvador Dali
LP
All of the blame can't be put on the media. After all, if there
wasn't an audience, the media wouldn't be as motivated to use these
events as entertainment. Since you don't watch these shows, you are
not part of the problem. The same cannot be said about the majority of
the people living in countries where this type of media exits.
Whirl_pool
#1439
LP
How does being a serial offender justify treating the story as
entertainment?
>In principle and in practice, there's a huge difference between the
>Manson murders and a drunk driver causing a traffic fatality. One of
>them deserves wide press coverage.
>
Yes, one is reported for entertainment, and the other is reported
because it is something that might actually concern you, since the
chance of it happening to you, or someone you know, are hundreds of
times more likely.
Here is something that gets little coverage on national news, but it
is a far greater risk to children than being abducted by a stranger.
Unfortunately, abductions are far more exciting to read about, which
leaves little time to cover stories about those things that are a much
greater danger to kids.
from:
http://family.go.com/raisingkids/child/dev/expert/dony0200faguns/dony0200faguns.html
GUN FACTS
The least-talked-about concern parents must confront today is safety
from guns. In his book PROTECTING THE GIFT, Gavin De Becker reveals
some harsh statistics:
• Every day about 75 American children are shot. Most recover--15 do
not.
• Twenty thousand guns enter the mainstream of commerce each day.
• The chance of a child being shot is 250 times greater than the
chance of a child being abducted by a stranger.
• The likelihood is great that your child will play in the homes of
people who own guns.
Read on to learn how to protect your child from guns, whether in your
own house or in the homes of friends and relatives.
http://family.go.com/raisingkids/child/dev/expert/dony0200faguns/dony0200faguns.html
-----------------
A few other dangers that are ignored by the media at the expense of
rare, yet entertaining news.
Childhood diabetes.
http://www.childhooddiabetes.com/view.asp?categoryID=1
Drowning, a Leading Cause of Death of Children
http://www.nyredcross.org/news/000522_drown.asp
http://www.familyresource.com/parenting/9/
http://www.kidcheck.org/safety/safety2.html
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01168.html
http://www.kidsource.com/CPSC/pool_tips.html
Injuries
http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/Reports/98ChildHealth/injuries.pdf
http://www.childrens.com/healthinfo/Display.cfm?ID=1082&main=1082
Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death
and injury to children up to 15 years old
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buckleplan/buaweek/buaweekmobil/page06.htm
http://www.nemours.org/no/news/releases/2002/020503_vehicular_deaths.html
Each year, fire kills more Americans
than all natural disasters combined.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/dhtml/public/facts.cfm
http://www.safekids.org/tier2_rl.cfm?folder_id=171
Suicide
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/suifact.htm
Common hazards
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/health_tip/chfc.html
Whirl_pool
#1439
chibiabos
<myn...@yourchin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:59:21 -0700, chibiabos <ch...@outreach.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >STANTON, California (CNN) -- Police confirmed Wednesday that a body
> >> >found in rural California was that of kidnapped 5-year-old Samantha
> >> >Runnion.
> >>
> >> So, they are going to start reporting every kidnap/murder now? Thanks,
> >> Elizabeth Smart. The media needed another thing to contribute to their
> >> sensationalism.
> >
> >You realize, of course, that Elizabeth Smart wasn't the first. (In
> >fact, her story was almost lost in the media noise. It didn't become
> >the lead story until nearly five days after her abduction. I first saw
> >it on page 6 of my local paper, where it got a whole 2 inches of column
> >space.)
>
> I *know* she's not the first. This is why I find it ridiculous that
> they have been using these stories for ratings.
Jaded cynicism can be carried a little too far, Jeremy.
I don't watch very much television. In fact, I watch very little. I'm
usually in the back room doing something else while my partner and her
kids are in the living room watching the Simpsons (or whatever).
But, when this story broke, I was glued to the TV, wanting to know what
happened to this little girl. Mostly I wanted to hear that she was
okay. My partner called me at work the next morning to tell me she
wasn't, and I was a worthless ball of seething anger the rest of the
day. The sadness was overwhelming.
Maybe it would have been better if I'd never heard about Samantha
Runnion. Maybe I could've had a better day if the sensationalist news
media in its unending quest for ratings hadn't got me all worked up.
Maybe you're right.
But I respectfully submit that this isn't the case. I did NOT get
worked up because the news media has a profit motive. I got worked up
because a little girl was abducted, sexually assaulted, then murdered.
Nobody should have to endure what this little girl endured in the last
hours of her life. Nobody.
Maybe you can forgive me for not giving a fuck about the news media's
motives in cases like these. Maybe you can't. I can only say that for
some strangely human reason this case has affected me like few others
have in the past.
>
> >It's only sensationalism unless it's your child he's after, I guess.
>
> I don't see how you can say that, considering that I've hinted at
> nothing of the source. Don't try and put words in my mouth.
Your remarks about sensationalizing a case like this put those words in
your mouth, Jeremy. Not me.
Jake
Entertainment!?? What have you been watching? I haven't seen these
stories being treated as entertainment.
>
> >In principle and in practice, there's a huge difference between the
> >Manson murders and a drunk driver causing a traffic fatality. One of
> >them deserves wide press coverage.
> >
>
> Yes, one is reported for entertainment, and the other is reported
> because it is something that might actually concern you, since the
> chance of it happening to you, or someone you know, are hundreds of
> times more likely.
You and I are watching entirely different news programs.
LP
What other purpose are they serving?
Whirl_pool
#1439
Dad35
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2002 22:45:16 GMT, "flang" <l.la...@verizon.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If your child were to be kidnapped I am sure you wouldn't complain about the
> >coverage.
>
> No, but the media sensationalism over it has been rather annoying.
>
> Yesterday, one of the Fox morons (either O'Reilly or Hannity) said
> that they were scared for their children because of these past two
> incidents, as most parents are.
>
> Hello? This happens way the hell more often, but it isn't reported on
> the big news sources.
The fact that you regard Fox News as being staffed by "morons" says a
lot about your mental capacity.
Jeremy Martin
>> >If your child were to be kidnapped I am sure you wouldn't complain about the
>> >coverage.
>>
>> No, but the media sensationalism over it has been rather annoying.
>>
>> Yesterday, one of the Fox morons (either O'Reilly or Hannity) said
>> that they were scared for their children because of these past two
>> incidents, as most parents are.
>>
>> Hello? This happens way the hell more often, but it isn't reported on
>> the big news sources.
>
>The fact that you regard Fox News as being staffed by "morons" says a
>lot about your mental capacity.
The fact that you defend Fox really shows your inability to think for
yourself.
--
Jeremy Martin (Dethstryk) aa #75C
BAAWA Knit
"Ars longa, vita brevis."
- Horace
stoney
Message ID: <ah6gj7$q...@nntpa.cb.lucent.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
(snip-child kidnapping murder story)
>Consider this: if every American spends one minute looking for this
>killer, that's about 500 person-years of effort, and roughly 99.7% of
>them are bound to be looking in the wrong place (assuming 1 million
>people are actually close enough to the killer to have a prayer of
>finding him). Since their only clues are the color of the car and
>that it's either a Honda or an Accura, it stands to reason that
>there will be hundreds or thousands of false leads, some of which
>will injure the person falsely accused by forcing him to answer
>police questions and impugning his name. How much harm does "breeding
>needless distrust of your neighbor" cause?
Around 1973 in the North Detroit Metro Area (Oakland County) there
was a few of these as well. The only clue was the person was
driving a blue American Motors Gremlin. As I recall, this was not
the time to own one of these things. Far as I'm aware the cases
were never solved. Last thing I'm aware of the police think the
perpetrator either died or was in prison for something else.
(snip)
--
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
Darth Smartass
news:78d2f3d8.02071...@posting.google.com:
Your support of Fox News says a lot about yours.
--
Darth Smartass: Dark Paddleboater of the Sith
Commander, EAC Kayak Infiltration Commadoes
aa #One double one, one, double-oh, one hundred, double-one.
BAAWA Knight
---Begin Atheist Codeblock---
del *.god
----End Atheist Codeblock----
stoney
Update:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58148,00.html
Police Make Arrest in Runnion Killing
Friday, July 19, 2002
STANTON, Calif. — Police arrested Alejandro Avila, 27, Friday in
connection with the kidnapping and killing of 5-year-old Samantha
Runnion, Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona said.
Avila was arrested after search warrants were served overnight at an
apartment complex not far from where the girl's body was found
Tuesday.
However, Carona offered no further details about the suspect and did
not answer any questions, promising to provide more information at
an evening press conference.
The announcement was made after Riverside County Sheriff-elect Bob
Doyle played a tape of the 911 call from a man who found the body.
"I'm so scared. It was a little kid," he said.
Authorities mounted a statewide manhunt following Samantha's
abduction Monday evening in this community southeast of Los Angeles.
Carona said earlier that warrants had been served at four locations,
including an apartment complex near Lake Elsinore.
Adelina Avila of Lake Elsinore told reporters her apartment was
searched Thursday and her son had been detained earlier that day.
"I don't think my son did anything, but I notice he is cooperating,"
said Adelina Avila. "I don't have anything against that. He hasn't
been through this before so he doesn't know what's going on. He
doesn't have no record."
Alejandro Avila was charged two years ago, however, with molesting
two girls under the age of 14, but was acquitted by a Riverside
County jury, said Deputy District Attorney Paul Dickerson.
"I felt the guy was guilty, and did everything I could to try and
get him convicted," Dickerson said. He did not have details of that
case.
A Los Angeles television station said Avila told his mother via
telephone that Orange County sheriff's deputies were holding him in
a motel as they waited for results on tests done on physical
evidence.
The TV station reported that Avila's mother said that authorities
took away a computer, a few shirts and a pair of shoes from the
apartment.
Avila's mother said her son had been on his cell phone at about the
time Samantha was abducted Monday night, and that he had told her he
was at a shopping mall in Ontario, in San Bernardino County, about
40 miles from Lake Elsinore and about 25 miles from the girl's home
in the Orange County city of Stanton.
Avila told television reporters by telephone that he did not buy
anything at the shopping mall.
The Los Angeles Times did not say whether Avila's son was the man
police were focusing on, but reported that three cars resembling the
abductor's vehicle had been confiscated from the apartment complex.
According to the only witness to the abduction, 5-year-old Sarah
Ahn, the kidnapper was driving a light green Honda or Acura when he
bundled the kicking and screaming Samantha into his car after luring
her to him with a story about a lost puppy.
Between 10 and 50 people had been detained and questioned by
Thursday night, said Carona, and more than 1,000 leads had come in
to the command center across the street from Samantha's home in the
suburban community of Stanton.
She and a 5-year-old friend were playing only about 150 feet from
Samantha's front door in a complex of townhouses when a man drove up
after making a U-turn. The man got out and asked for help finding
his puppy, then took off with the kicking and screaming girl.
Samantha's nude body was discovered Tuesday afternoon on the edge of
the Cleveland National Forest, 50 miles from Stanton. Authorities
said she had been sexually assaulted and then smothered after being
alive with her killer for several hours.
Early Thursday, the California Highway Patrol arrested a man after a
40-mile chase from Visalia to Fresno that was prompted by a
citizen's 911 call reporting that he looked similar to a drawing of
Samantha's killer that authorities have circulated nationwide.
He was questioned for more than 10 hours and then released, and
sheriff's Lt. Lloyd Downing said afterward, "I have no information
to say that he is a suspect."
The man's lawyer said it was a case of mistaken identity, adding
that his client, who lives in East Los Angeles and works in Stanton,
was in the Fresno area to visit his children. He was cited for
investigation of evading arrest, carrying a concealed weapon in a
vehicle and possessing a loaded gun, all misdemeanors. He was
released on $4,800 bond.
Meanwhile, in Sunderland, Mass., Samantha's biological father, Derek
Jackson, mourned her Thursday at a news conference from his home.
"I will always stay connected with her. She will live in my heart
when I wake up every day," Jackson said. "I love her dearly. I miss
you, Samantha."
Jackson also offered advice to other parents.
"Please watch your children. Every second, don't let them out of
your sight, especially now," he said.
Outside Samantha's home, a memorial continued to grow. Flowers,
stuffed animals, balloons, candles and personal messages to her were
laid out on 14 tables in a courtyard of the housing complex.
Once full of children playing and skateboarding, the streets inside
the cluster of condominiums were vacant Thursday morning. A nearby
park was also sparsely populated, and parents kept a careful watch.
Tara Frietas, 13, walked with her grandfather, Art Domen, 79, from
their Garden Grove home a few blocks away to pay their respects.
They said they had taken extra precautions.
"I have to be home before dark. I can't go anywhere alone, and I'm
not to speak to strangers," Tara said, adding she was afraid after
hearing the sheriff comment Wednesday that the killer could strike
again.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
©Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2002 Standard & Poor's
/end
Doc
> I'm also aware
> that most kids aren't kidnapped or attacked, though I'm a fairly
> cautious mother
You know, while most may not be outright kidnapped, my seat of the
pants hunch is that many or most kids DO have one or more encounters
of varying degrees with someone with unsavory intentions at some
point, whether they're a textbook snatch and grab pedophile like this
Avila, an older child, older adult relative, a "pervert in the park",
etc.
How many reading this can recall such an encounter? I bet a large
number.
I'm not sure what percentage of the population are predators of this
nature, but even if it's a relatively small percentage, as I
understand it these guys tend to repeat the behavior until they're
stopped. Which is why getting even one of these mofo's off the street
is likely going to spare a number of kids. So, whatever their
motivation, I have no problem with coverage of something like this if
it helps get the bastard caught.
Unfortunately, after that point, whether he'll actually be dealt with
appropriately is another matter. Don't most of these guys, as did this
Avila, have a history of some prior encounter with the law?
Dad35
> On 19 Jul 2002 09:04:24 -0700, ddd...@ireland.com (Dad35) wrote:
>
> >> >If your child were to be kidnapped I am sure you wouldn't complain about the
> >> >coverage.
> >>
> >> No, but the media sensationalism over it has been rather annoying.
> >>
> >> Yesterday, one of the Fox morons (either O'Reilly or Hannity) said
> >> that they were scared for their children because of these past two
> >> incidents, as most parents are.
> >>
> >> Hello? This happens way the hell more often, but it isn't reported on
> >> the big news sources.
> >
> >The fact that you regard Fox News as being staffed by "morons" says a
> >lot about your mental capacity.
>
> The fact that you defend Fox really shows your inability to think for
> yourself.
I don't recall defending Fox. I merely implied that their editorial
staff and anchors may be a bit less moronic than the liberal network
drones.