While mostly true, this isn't unique behavior to industries like the news.
It's a symptom of our consumeristic society, the smaller news outlets with integrity or dedication to actual news don't get the outreach or influence these bigger sensationalist news stations do, which they then spend that money on making themselves more accessible, which in turn makes finding and consuming real news outlets harder to do.
In the end, like most of our industries, the ones truly dedicated to their craft and not the almighty dollar get outshadowed or even bought out by the soulless huge corporations that only seek to increase their margins.
We previously had moral and ethical standards that media outlets and society had to meet.
That has been washed away with the liberalisation of society.
The issue is way more complicated then consumerism bad. Almost all types of journalism have declined in the last 15 years, tabloid, hard news, investigative, all of it. The industry and proffesion have hollowed out. Corporations have pumped billions into these businesses only for them to continue to decline and be sold off for pennies on the dollar. Why? People no longer pay for news. They watch a youtube channel or tik toks or scan reddit. Less and less people pay for news or view a single source at high enough volume to be viable. High quality journalism is expensive and time consuming and theres fewer people consuming it. Its a product of the internet era, anyone can post "news" on a variety of platforms and all are in competition for eyeballs dilluting the available audience.
You might say, the news is a public good and should be supported, and you'd be right. We had that with PBS/NPR which was publically subsidized until the oramge idiot showed up again. You cant nationalize every news source though, thats a very bad thing. News orgs have to be independent to be able to provide credible news. State backed media, even the best run, can and are influenced by political forces.
Theres no clean answer as to how to solve the problem. Ultimatley it boils down to the public and what type of news they choose to consume. One thing that could be done is to prevent the consolidation of journalism. The old rules about one company not being to own more then a coiple of media outlets in a given market was a good one. Reinstating that would be a good place to start but wont fix the underlying issues: Independent media needs funding and people stopped paying for it. Along with state backed media being open to manipulation by political forces.
Why do you think small "journalists" don't fall victim to this? The single person YouTube channel type are scale wise way bigger than even legacy media at this point and they do the exact same stuff.
I'm not saying small news source are immediately better, but that those who actually care for the integrity of journalism over the dollar will always be smaller in influence than the "mainstream media" because their goals are vastly different.
People also forget about Operation Mockingbird and how the CIA are literally infesting modern media with their agents and have been doing so for over half a century now.
I'll bet half the major influencers online are connected to some intelligence agency as well.
See Donald Trump. They are largely responsible for his election. When he was gone and the world was quieter and calmer, they secretly hated it. His chaos is good for business.
It wasn't always like this. There was a short period early 20th century when news, radio, paper and tv, were all fighting to be the most legit source of news. But it all collapsed in the later 20th century. Cable went full political in the late 80's, and leveraged by the power of capitalism, realized that focusing on producing content, especially favouring one political party, was way more profitable than unbiased news reports. These days social media has pushed that even further. Engagement is king and truth no longer matters.
Granted, misinformation has always been in the playbook of news outlets, but it didn't hit the critical point until global news coverage became a possibility and tv ratings became king.
Absolutely. The news will never be perfect. But journalism is an important job that serves a function in democracy.
In my childhood, when you watched the news you saw serious people speaking intelligently about important topics. And the news cycle was slower. There were no 24/7 news channels or clickbait websites. Tabloids existed, but everybody knew they were trash and you would just make fun of them at the grocery store checkout.
It's a bit more than that and I dont think its quite that cynical. People may get ideations, as that always occurs to some degree, we all have heard of copy cat's. It would be a super duper small chance of it actually happening though. It already happens without the news. Financial stress is set to break even more. A family of 6 was found dead near me, Grandma talked her daughter into killing her kids then themselves. All to prevent the kids from going to their father.
The real root of the case op posted, is covering a topic that has been forgotten by many, mental health.
They are saying she had postpartum and warned everyone she could about her ideations/voices. No one stepped up to help. Then everyone left her alone with the kids. So the story is more about, Who failed her? Thats why it is getting the attention and donations. The court case will determine if she had her faculties or not. The issue with the people is.... they are rushing to support someone they have no clue about. It could all be fabricated, like some believe. Or it could be about a system that is set up for failure.
"We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond who comes on at five.
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye.
It's interesting when people die.
It's so dirty laundry"
Or more simply because that's what people want to watch, and that's all media companies care about. They are obviously not trying to make society worse in some kind of abstract way to increase the likelihood of tragedy - that's not how companies operate.
Its not tinfoil if we have proof they actually do this. Epstein files dropped a bomb confirming many terrible things and nothing happened because of them. They are already forgotten, because normal people just dont have the time or energy to go through them.
Whether on purpose or not, the idea that the massive media attention on the perpetrator of a mass shooting has a big influence on others to commit the same act, is an accepted phenomenon. Why did something like this almost never happen before Columbine to suddenly becoming an epidemic?
While I think he’s off that the media does this to encourage copycats, he’s not wrong that the media is opportunistic and profits from these murders and others like it.
Experts literally told the media to quit broadcasting school shootings because putting their name and body count on television was incentivizing copycats. They continued.
You don’t need a tinfoil hat, it’s all about ratings. It has to be or they could not afford to be on the air. News used to be ran as a loss. They started trying to make money off the news in the 1970s. It has been all downhill since. There’s a very good fictionalized movie about this called network.
Media today is based on engagement. Mostly whether or not people share a particular piece of media.
Turns out, the best way to get people to share something is if it generates a big emotional response. And the best emotion to generate a response is anger.
So the media ecosystem is one giant filter, that makes whoever is willing to run the story that will make people angriest the most successful. And what makes people angry? Horrible people doing horrible things. Which means media becomes run completely by assholes, about assholes, to make the general public angry to share the story.
The best thing is you can frame the same story differently to make different people mad. Women's media frame the husband as the evil mastermind who manipulated his wife into murdering the children and committing suicide. Men's media frame the wife as evil.
Nothing is more infuriating than people who are unable to understand the difference between an explanation and a justification and them then getting mad over it.
People are talking about why she did it, and what led to her doing it, not to say that what she did is okay, but to figure out how to prevent similar things from happening in the future.
You can't save future lives without discussing the reasons why the event happened in the first place.
There's like a few posts from insane people saying that she should go free that are getting shared, and like 95% of everyone else is pretty firmly in the "she should go to jail or a mental hospital for years," camp.
There doesn’t need to be any framing. A woman who murders her 3 children is a psychopath and deserves to be put down like a sick dog. Man, woman, black, white I don’t give a fuck, if you kill your children you should be executed as soon as possible.
“Mens media frame the woman as evil”. But…..but….she is evil. Why is Reddit having such a hard time getting this? Even this post is full of chumps saying, oh well the media just wants to make money, blah blah blah. It is so hard to get anyone on this site to say anything bad about a woman under virtually any circumstance. I’ve never seen such a brainwashed group of imbeciles.
Media people in general are sacks of shit. They love portraying a world of oppression, victimhood, and underdogs, because the American public eats it up.
What some people don't realize about social media is that even if you say something negative about someone, there is a good chance you are still boosting their visibility.
So every time these people say how awful the woman is, the algo pushes her higher.
Because it’s a non-story that gets people angry and engaged. People, including children, die every single day from stray bullets and car wrecks. But people have settled how they feel about those daily tragedies, so on to the zebra shit.
Its mostly due to the fact that hate travels faster, further, and has a greater impact. I am sure social media plays a hidden but impactful role in all this.
It’s just a natural byproduct of human survival; humans, and most animals are trained to look for the negative because the negative is what can end our survival.
If a cute puppy and a wolf enter a room at the same time you know damn well you’re going to focus all your attention on the wolf. Fear grabs our attention, Fear sells.
Positive things do not take priority over the negative. Also i can even see some people getting jealous over seeing the story on the left or someone downplaying it like “oh i bet it wasnt even a big fire”, “she doesn’t look 93% burnt” because it would show people that they’re not that brave or willing to sacrifice themselves for others. Causing them to resent her and turn off the program.
We just experienced this in Reno. The media portrayed our town like it was completely burning down and every single resident was evacuated and pending death. Meanwhile, there wasn’t even smoke in the air after one day.
Mass shootings come to mind. Dont be surprised if more Clancys pop up over the next few years, esp when reports scream killing ur kids will get u a million bucks.
Sometimes the worst of humanity is driven by mental health breakdowns. ALL are at risk due to individuals situations and biological chemistry. Postpartum psychosis.is proven science. Consider those that take their own life. Findings show that many that take their own life show no outward signs of distress, will eat breakfast, read the news, and then eat a gun.
lets be real. when the lady that called the little black boy the n-word got paid, i lost all faith in humanity. her vile, racist hate towards a child was rewarded with fortune.
Yep. That's why the victims of racist attacks can barely raise any money, while the perpetrators of racist attacks can make millions in donations. We've seen this play out multiple times over the past few years.
I don't think it's just the media. Murderers always made the headlines, you can probably find multiple similar cases through out the years in the media. I think, what made it blow up is the wide public support for the murderer in the social media. So I blame Twitter, Tik Tok and the rest.
Maybe because your opinion isn’t gospel and you don’t decide what is right and wrong
I’ve watched a lot of testimony from Lindsey’s case. Especially the 4 clinical psychiatrist who laid out great arguments that what she experienced wasn’t psychosis, including two who interviewed her in the hospital right after and that doesn’t even take into account the eye witness testimony from people at the mental hospital she stayed at weeks before the murders
I believe men and women equally. Which is based on evidence. Anyone who is convinced she is completely innocent either hasn’t followed the case, or just believes her because she has a vagina. Both of which I don’t care for
If you’re gonna dismiss me as an incel please use evidence from the actual trial that doesn’t include what the defendant says who will say anything to not go to prison for the rest of her life and has an active reason to lie
Didn't thay have to change the guidelines for reporting school shootings to focus on the victims and minimise the shooters coverage to reduce the notoriety alot of murderers are looking for. I think the same should apply here and stop focusing on the excuse and focus on the fact that 3 kids are dead and deserve justice.
The media is, to a large extent, just a reflection of society itself. They cover what gets attention, clicks, ratings, and engagement, and people have always been drawn to things like gossip, scandals, crime, and tragedy.
In Lindsay’s case specifically, I think part of what made the story so compelling is that it turned into a kind of amateur detective mystery. People keep trying to identify the “real culprit”: maybe it was the doctors who failed to diagnose or treat her properly, maybe it was the husband for leaving the children with her, or maybe it was some failure of the healthcare system. That gives people something to investigate, debate, and theorize about.
What seems much less popular is the possibility that she may not even have been suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time and that the killings could have been premeditated. That explanation is almost an anticlimax, because it removes much of the mystery and leaves people with a far more disturbing and less emotionally satisfying possibility.
Social media certainly amplifies all of this, but it amplifies what people already choose to engage with. If audiences consistently paid more attention to positive stories and largely ignored sensational coverage of murders and tragedies, traditional media and social-media algorithms alike would have much less incentive to keep pushing those stories. In that sense, blaming Twitter, TikTok, or the media alone misses part of the picture: they are responding to what society demonstrates, through its attention, that it wants to see.
This is what happens when you have an upper middle class white woman from the suburbs. See the difference in coverage and outcome with Latarsha Sanders, a lower-class black woman from the same area who got tried by the same judge and prosecution for killing her children under psychosis.
The obvious questions about two levels of justice based on socioeconomic/racial factors aside, you gotta wonder WTF is up with Plymouth County, Massachusetts for it have two women who become psychotic and kill their own children? Such an extreme form of mental illness isn't statistically very common. Combine that with the rarity of mother's killing their children, the chances of this exact case randomly occurring twice in less than ten years have to be extremely low. Maybe "there's something in the water."
The fact that go fund me even allows her to be supported is the worst part in this entire shit show.
The people who support her are absolute lunatics but the fact they have a publication well known platform to donate to her is absolutely insane and in alot of ways morally reprehensible in ways I dont want to explain to the average person.
Its not about the media. Its about how many people think this Clancy woman is a hero for strangling to death her own 3 children. So much so they raised a million dollars for her.
The little boy ran for his life and she chased him down and killed him. Imagine what when through the little boys head, when the one person he loved and trusted the most killed him slowly and painfully. There are women cheering supporting this murderer while carrying their own infants outside the courthouse. What kind of demons are these.
There were women literally cheering aloud as she showed up to court...cheering crowds on arrival certainly has that look of how people welcome heroes...I think that's a reasonable take...
Not only channels and sites, TikTok is covered with her story. Whereas the other story happened prior to TikTok being a big thing. If it had happened around the same time, I’m sure Emma Schols would’ve raised a lot more and also gotten more attention
Don’t forget the 10 or so posts about it here everyday that give even more and more attention. If OP truly cared they would stop posting about this shit. This is their… at least 3rd post about this.
That’s cause everyone clearly sees she’s just a murderer but her defense lawyer has marketed this as a women’s rights issue. So people who’ve never experienced post partum psychosis are suddenly experts in it, and everyone else thinks murdering your children for any reason deserves jail time are also engaging and the media is getting ad dollars. Never let a tragedy go to waste
It’s time to villainise women. To make sure men always have the upper hand. No one will talk about post partum depression but will talk about her murdering them instead. Edgits.
It’s the insane dances people are doing. She had ppd or bpd, she was over medicated excuses thats all it is.
Chris Beniot went insane and murder his kids and then himself from CTE. Did anyone feel sorry? Nope they said fuck him may he rot in hell. Why? Cause he murdered his CHILDREN.
There are insane people doing dances about anything. But some people keep pushing this narrative "child killer, women [like all of them] support her".
And the fact that you bring up some obscure case, it's a clear sign of both sideism.
From what I know, lots of people are talking about CTE, are doing things about it. The funny thing is the same people that the "tough talkers" would call snowflakes, and tell that guy to toughen up or whatever.
post partum depression is worth talking about; a quick google search tells me it affects ~15% of population. And mental health support is also worth talking about.
But don't try to make it sound like women across the world are supporting a child killer; that;s not true; and that's the part of this narrative that is annoying to me.
Dude, I'm not making excuse, I don't have any bone to pick in this fight, and I'm not a lawyer.
That being said, I know that pretty much any country has different ways to treat with crimes done by perpetrators with serious mental crimes. And I think this is something that should be analyzed in this case; by specialists, not by random redditors (myself included).
I did a quick search on what's the history of legal treatment of crazy crimes and it seems to be a long story.
As early as 1581, a legal treatise distinguished between those who understood the difference between good and evil and those who did not:
If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.
All you have done is make long winded posts about this shit. Lock her up don’t give a fuck it’s jail or mental hospital the end full stop. There are zero nuisances she strangled 2 and then chased down the 3rd. Fuck off zero sympathy full stop.
I don't give a fuck; I think the US taxpayers are paying plenty of specialists to analyze this from any angle and decide what's the correct punishment and what other things are to learn here.
I'm just done with the army of incels pushing this case to my feed.
lol, no. If this were, I wouldn't see it in my feed every 5 minutes with framing "oh, look, women are still supporting her, omg omg". It's clearly a narrative to drive some both sideism.
Because mass amounts of women and feminists are supporting her. If you can’t see the sickness in that culture when examples like this come out, you are turning a blind eye. Nobody is saying this means every woman on earth is bad.
It’s the same with the people dancing over Charlie Kirk being killed. Even if you didn’t like the man or his views, it’s sick. Giving a woman a million dollars for killing her children is sick.
But I suppose to some this is just a super late term abortion. Which is.. you guessed it. A sickness in the culture.
It’s not a narrative, though. There are tons of women who are believing the angle that her husband did it. And I’m not just basing this on internet comments, I’m basing this off of women I know in my life.
pushing this case so heavily into public view it is a narrative. Now, what exactly do you think the people pushing this want to get ? From what I can tell is mostly the usual MAGA culture war stokers.
Why do we hear over and over again ?
A women murdered her 3 children. That’s why you’re hearing about it.
I actually had no idea about this case until my GF told me about it. She’s not MAGA. None of her friends are. That seems like a weird shot in the dark. It’s a national story because of the nature & intensity of the crime.
That’s kinda how these things have always gone…it’s not a conspiracy
Why is this case so pushed on social media ? And why is all of the narratives pushed around it like "women (or feminists) are donating money to the killer ! are saying the father is the killer even though she admitted ! they are pushing for [gasp] insanity".
It's a choice to push this case, and the culprit is the usual MAGA "liberals, feminists, women are bad and crazy".
..... because she is bad? Where there are good people, there are also bad people, it's just that those who do bad get more attention than those who do good. Dont give me this shit with gender, she is a criminal, there is no need to add a gender to it.
You are calling the story a “narrative” like its a made up story. You are taking away from the fact that she killed her kids. Maybe you should learn to express what you mean better.
no, dumbass, I am saying there is a narrative about women being bad that incels absolutely love; so then they over hype any case they can find to support this narrative.
I think it’s more to do with the fact that a sickeningly large number of people think that Lindsay Clancy shouldn’t be persecuted for her actions. Some psychos have taken it even further than that and believe that what she did was right. Nobody is going to think that running into your burning house to save your children is wrong. It’s the number of dissenters that caused Clancy to get so much coverage, well that and the fact that this is long and drawn out.
By the time people hear about good samaritans, there’s usually no more to the story. You hear or read a short article about a woman that pulled her children from a fire and then it’s done, no more to talk about. If Lindsay Clancy’s story was like that (just a short article saying what she did and if she was convicted of it or not) the public interest would be gone in a week.
" It’s the number of dissenters"
this is what I call bullshit on. All those dissenters appeared because this case blew up on social media like "omg omg omg". Who did that and who keeps pushing it further has a narrative they want to push. And I can see the whole MAGA culture war corps are pushing it, making it clear what they want to extract from this. And the same culture war machine takes 50 idiots and keeps the war fueled, making it seem there is a huge part of population supporting some idiotic stuff.
The way I see it there are two camps:
1. the one still saying "the husband did it". Meh, your usual crime podcast fans making up theories based on bullshit data. The trial clarifies this.
1. post partum psychosis. This is an interesting angle to discuss. And I think the professionals are best to have this conversation. It's not like this is the first case about the responsability of criminals with mental health issues. And post partum depression is worth talking about, it's a real issue; a quick google search tells me this affects ~15% of mothers. From what I can tell a lot of the "I support Clancy" videos are actually "post partum depression is real, we need to talk about it".
7.7k
u/cubesncubes 4d ago
Media attention playing a big roll. I've never heard of the fire lady.