Social Question

seawulf575's avatar

Why does the media treat this story differently?

Asked by seawulf575 (8347points) 1 week ago

The media went into overdrive with the two shootings in El Paso and Dayton. And rightfully so. So why is there almost nothing about the guy that used a knife to go on a killing/robbing spree in California, killing 4 and injuring more?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

69 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

Because Obamahusseinhillaryclintonsemailsfakenewsdeepstatesocialismlibtardsmagawhitepowernoobstructionnocollusionwetbackinvasionmuslimterroristsiranisisbenghazibrainwashedlibruls.

jca2's avatar

There was also a shooting in Brooklyn the same time, where a few people died. It was at a party. It was gang related, I believe, which is why the media didn’t make a big deal about it. I live about sixty miles away and I didn’t even know until a Republican FB friend was bitching about the shootings on FB and one of his commenters said something about the shooting in Brooklyn, and how media was ignoring it.

There are killings and shootings every day all over the country, but when it’s multiple in a large quantity and it’s random, that’s what makes the news.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Because only the stories that support the media narrative and agenda they are pushing will make the big headlines.

LadyMarissa's avatar

There was also a lady stabbed to death while waiting at a bus stop in Pittsburgh & her friend was wounded. T.here was a police officer standing there next to them

I awoke to several stories about the Cali stabbings & each was updated as the morning progressed. What I found strange was that Fox News completely ignored it & CNN kept updating as the info became available!!!

JLeslie's avatar

I think @jca2 and @ARE_you_kidding_me are both right. I also think the media goes where they think they will get ratings ($$$$).

Like the republicans constantly point out, people are shot in Chicago almost every day. That’s true in many more cities than just Chicago. Memphis, New Orleans, Baltimore, Detroit, plenty of cities with gun violence almost daily. A lot of it is drug related and gang related. I don’t know the percentages. Most of it isn’t a mass shooting, I think mass is 4 or more.

I think partly it’s not picked up by the national news because it’s seen as a local problem when it’s in a poor area in the inner city. Being shot in a mall, school, bar, or movie theater, feels more like it could happen to anyone anywhere.

I’m not defending not reporting these things, it’s just my take on it.

A Republican friend of mine says the media is being racist. I guess he means reverse racism. When he used the word racist it just makes my eyes roll, give me a fucking break with trying to use that word (and I actually do believe minorities can be racist against white people) but I think it is possible parts of the media are loathe to report black and Hispanic crime. About 30 years ago it was proven that the media unfairly reported more crime done by minorities, and that white criminals weren’t reported on in the same way, there was a bias against minorities. There was efforts to try to make it more balanced. I don’t know exactly what the deal is now. I also don’t know the actual race and ethnicity statistics for gun crimes committed.

The thing is, if the news reports 10 crimes, and 1 was a black guy committing the crimes and 9 were white guys committing the crimes, anyone who is racist watching the news report only sees the black story anyway. Their brain is selective to confirm their own attitudes. I mean, that racist guy interacts with white guys all day long who would never shoot anyone. That’s his brain’s idea of the average white guy no matter what the news shows him.

zenvelo's avatar

It got widespread coverage here in California, even in Northern California, 450 miles away. It led the TV news, and has been on the front page of the papers.

Yet the circumstances were different, not because of the knife, but because they weren’t multiple victims in a crowded public space. Two of the victims were being burglarized at the perp’s apartment complex; two others at locations he was robbing.

si3tech's avatar

Much harder to ban knives.

zenvelo's avatar

@si3tech That is because knives have many uses that are unrelated to killing. Guns are designed solely to kill people; any other uses are just side benefits.

si3tech's avatar

@zenvelo My point precisely!

Demosthenes's avatar

They report on what’s most shocking. Open firing on a crowd in a public place is more shocking than someone who kills their family or a gang-related shooting or someone who kills people in the midst of a crime spree.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

A lot of items were designed to soley kill people and to hunt with but over the years have evolved , example the bow and arrow, the spear, and yes the knife as well.
My expensive over and under Trap shot gun wasn’t designed to kill people it was designed to hit fast flying clay targets.
Even my metalic target pistol wasn’t designed to kill people.
More innocent people are killed in auto accidents by bad drivers every year than gun crimes and we aint going to ban vehicles.
stronger gun laws should be looked at, and and military style weapons should be highly restricted in civilian hands, starting with age limits, and needing permits to use and transport those style guns.
But the idiots doing these shootings don’t care about laws, and they will get the weapon in the black market if they are that dedicated to do these crimes.

kritiper's avatar

There are far more shootings going on than knifings, so they draw a larger audience.

zenvelo's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Once again, you come out in defense of widespread gun ownership, and do not support the US trying to enact gun laws similar to those in Canada.

Cars are not designed for killing. Guns are.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I am not against sensible firearm laws.
Your reaction to this will only punish law abiding firearm owners, I did state that was in favour of restricting military style firearms, background checks, permit to purchase,permit to transport and so on.
All firearms are not designed to kill, while all will do the job is that what you wanted to ear?
But so will a blade, or a vehicle.
Your country is never going to come up with sensible gun laws, because like your Government your to divided on the subject, and these mass shooting will just keep going on and on.

seawulf575's avatar

An interesting side story on this sort of question involves Baltimore. All the while that the media is blasting Trump for saying Baltimore is rat infested, Baltimore passed the milestone of 200 murders so far this year. Why was that ignored? Or when you look at the murder rate, you find Baltimore to have a higher murder rate than Honduras. That was pretty well glossed over as well. I’m not trying to turn the thread to Baltimore, but the lack of media attention to these amazing things is odd.
@jca2 I know that the media will not go whole hog for every single murder and that they try to focus on the “biggies”. But a guy running around with a knife killing 4 people and injuring more, robbing as he goes, is pretty darn bizarre. That’s why I picked up on it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No one is looking to ban your hunting guns, or your single shot pistols.

MrGrimm888's avatar

But that’s the problem. It’s a slippery slope. If they ban all firearms capable of killing multiple people, why would the same logic not apply to a gun that can kill just a few? I think that’s what is the main issue….

Plus. Most people killed by firearms, are killed by small capacity pistols. Especially revolvers. They don’t expell used cartridges, and therfore, leave no evidence of the killing. Therfore, they are the primary tools, for killings.

Basically, the logic follows, that ALL guns, should be banned. That’s not realistic. And will NEVER, be done.

Most people who oppose firearms, simply don’t know anything about guns. That’s a fact.

Then what’s next? Most stabbings are done, by poor people who just have a kitchen knife. Are we going to ban ANYTHING capable of killing someone? I could kill a person, with my hands. Should we cut everyone’s hands off?....

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I read the Feinstein Assault style weapon ban. I suggest you do too before you make foolish statements like that. Basically, she was proposing a ban to any gun that is out there on the market….they all had “scary” aspects to them. Even most single shot pistols and hunting rifles would not pass muster. So yes, they are looking to ban them. And let me ask…where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that you have the right to keep and bear arms providing they don’t seem scary? Or that you can keep and bear arms for hunting and target practice only? Please…enlighten us. It does say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So wouldn’t a ban on 99% of the guns out there be an infringement?

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Dutchess_III of course they are. There are people on this site that would ban them all. I’m not aware of any “single shot pistols.” They’re mostly all semi automatic unless they’re antiques.

MrGrimm888's avatar

There are people on this site, that don’t have a clue, about what they are saying about firearms…

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t understand. Is the accusation from conservatives that mass shootings receive massive coverage because white men hold pretty much the exclusive franchise? Black folks have been complaining for years that mainstream media finds shootings of and by black folks less than newsworthy unless of course it’s black on white crime. To this I reply that the only reason these 3 incidents receive all the chatter is because it’s 3 in a week. Don’t worry white folks. Once the death rate exceeds Baltimore or Chicago levels, in other words once it becomes accepted as “normal”, all the fuss will die down.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I agree with banning assault weapons for civilians. Why does any civilian need a damn assault weapon? That’s not the same thing as banning all guns.
Sure there are some that would like to get rid of all guns, but it’s not likely to happen. That doesn’t mean we can’t look for common sense gun laws and regulations.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I had a thing about guns, back when it was all but impossible to obtain a fully automatic submachine gun. I remember walking into my girlfriend’s dad’s study. She knew that I was a military buff and couldn’t wait to drag me in before her dad to convince him that I wasn’t the worthless reprobate he assumed. I walked in that room and turned around to see her grinning like the lovely imp she was. And there mounted on the wall above the doorway was a genuine Browning Automatic Rifle. Below it was a Glorious Thompson submachine gun, and there above the desk, a for real German STG 44 submachine gun. I couldn’t believe it possible as she smirked “daddy has a gun fetish”. I came back with “I should be dating him!” Daddy wasn’t home and I never did get to meet him.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly you didn’t let me down…you made it all about race. And maybe it is…by the media. Why don’t they cover attacks by other races as much? The Nice, France truck attack was done by a guy named Mohammed. 84 dead. Yeah, it got a by line…a couple news stories, but not the 24/7 coverage of a shooting that killed 9. Zachary Casteneda…the perpetrator in the knife story I originally asked about is Latino. The NYC truck attack in 2017 was done by a guy named Sayfullo who had immigrated here from Uzbekistan. Again…some coverage but more of a blip. So maybe you are right…the media coverage IS racist.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Let me help you. Assault weapons are already heavily regulated for civilians. And here is the problem: You don’t have an understanding of what an assault weapon is. It is a fully automatic pistol or rifle. Fully automatic means pull and hold the trigger and bullets keep coming. Those are heavily regulated, requiring special licenses and approvals just to own one. The assault weapons the media plows on about are semi-automatic weapons that have some cosmetic attribute that makes them “look scary”. If a rifle has a pistol grip, the gun grabbers call it an assault weapon. If the grip has a place you can stick your thumb through, it is an assault weapon. If it has a shroud on the barrel for cosmetic reasons, it is an assault weapon even though it serves no purpose at all. The list goes on and on. Basically, if a gun grabber determines the gun looks scary, they want to call it an assault weapon. Now, with that in mind, think about it. It covers the majority of guns and could be extended to cover ALL guns. You could find something scary about all guns if you want to.

Dutchess_III's avatar

SMH. Clueless.

seawulf575's avatar

Yes you are! Finally! A breakthrough! Now…which part of my statement about assault weapons is not clear? I’ll be happy to discuss it with you.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf once again you indulge in your habit of putting words in my mouth. Comments on MY reading comprehension are bound to follow, but contrary to the conclusion that I made it all about race, how about the more logical deduction that my statement supports the one topic guaranteed to TRUMP even the race card—money! The media coverage isn’t so much racist as designed to appeal to those who pay to consume it. White folks want news about white folks. They want news about brown or black folks If the brown or black folks are threatening to be released from prison or crossing the border to rape and pillage. You will find in the news items that sell papers. It’s that simple. Mass shootings sell papers only because they are yet novelties that people will pay to read about or drive up ratings on the tube. It’s about news for profit. Perhaps if you can arrange 3 knifing sprees or auto rampages in a week, the press will notice.

zenvelo's avatar

@seawulf575 I find something scary about all guns-they kill people! And that’s what they are supposed to do! Guns are the one thing sold in a Walmart with the sole purpose of killing things.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

^^ Very true they indeed kill people when controlled by a mentally unstable person determined to hurt and kill people.
And because of that NO ONE should have them,is that correct?
Alcohol has wrecked more peoples lives than guns, but no one is screaming get rid of it,because a few can’t use it responsible?
Why do responsible people have to pay because some can’t use them ?
You do know some of these scary firearms are worth a lot of money, should they be handed over without compensation, some are family heirlooms , the only thing to remember a long past relative should they just surrender them as well?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly sort of valid, except I am a white person and am asking about why other stories aren’t covered. I know you love trying to make everything racist. Here’s a clue…I don’t care about race…I want news. And truly bizarre stories seem like they would draw more interest than the same stuff recycled over and over. A mass shooting is important…don’t get me wrong. I want to know about it. But some nut job traveling around robbing and stabbing people seems even more odd. Yet it gets next to nothing from coverage.
Another aspect I think we are missing is that the media tries to avoid reasons for the attacks. They have no problem when the reason is something like the asshole in Charlottesville that ran his car into the crowd. Then the reason was not only that he was a skin head asshole, but it got conflated into Trump urged the violence. Meanwhile they entirely ignore that Antifa and BLM marched to the peaceful protest at the statue and were carrying clubs and trying to start a fight.
When we can get to the bottom of why the media is so warped, we might start understanding some of the hate and discontent they sow in our nation.

seawulf575's avatar

@zenvelo Guns are made for a variety of reasons and killing is the primary. But not all guns are used for that purpose. Most never see any action outside of a firing range. But just like insurance…it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. I would suggest if you have a fear of guns then either you should address it to quell the fear or don’t buy a gun. I understand how guns work and I treat them with the respect they are due. Just like a power saw…if used incorrectly, they can really hurt you.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Which is why the media suppresses any mention of the power saw mass murder epidemic and harps day and night on shootings alone. What further proof of anti gun bias do you need?

MrGrimm888's avatar

Actually, lots of people are killed by power/industrial tools. It just doesn’t make the headline news….

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes. Proof of the media’s bias against guns and its incessant frenzy in exaggerating the significance of gun deaths. Perhaps we should look into the sinister aspects of the power tool lobby.

ragingloli's avatar

You would not let a toddler play with a plugged in hedge trimmer, would you.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Stanley. As you know, they actually did have a do something about industrial/power tool injuries. So. I don’t feel, it’s a bad analogy.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Yes, but in all that todo, no one could make the case that the problems with power tools are that they should be liable for fulfilling EXACTLY the purpose for which they were designed!

MrGrimm888's avatar

Disagree. These tools, are designed to tear things up. It’s the similar “misuse,” that causes so much carnage…

Do you really think gun manufacturers, intended for the weapons to be used in mass shootings?

stanleybmanly's avatar

What would you propose as the function of a full automatic machine gun or assault rifle? The weapons manufacturers obvious intent was and will always be to make money.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Stan. You are smart enough to know the difference between a company intending to harm people, or a company that is complicit with it. Pharmaceutical companies, are, IMO, far worse, than any gun manufacturer.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

THAT^^^ I totally agree with!!

MrGrimm888's avatar

Thank you. But it won’t change ANYTHING, as long as capitalism, is free to run it’s course… I’ve said before, capitalism, is like fire. It has to have some type of control… Otherwise, here we are…

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s the wrong approach. Nothing is a bigger waste of time than gauging the moral justification for ANY corporation in a capitalist setup. Good, bad, right or wrong, harmful, beneficial—all of that is meaningless. The ONLY thing that matters is what stands between the corporation and its primary purpose—to maximize profits. Ice cream or cigarettes, it matters not whether the product or service will extend or shorten your life, promote or destroy your health, enrich or impoverish us all as long as profit is extracted in the process and those profits are maximized. In this environment, perception is everything. Thus the key is to control what is declared good or evil only to the extent that the product is rendered legal or illegal—thus, advertising, public relations, bribing politicians, it all just comes with the territory. Now objectively, who in their right mind can look you in the face and argue that the manufacture of machine guns is a boon to civil society or that a pharmaceutical company should be entitled to charge $3000 for a pill simply because it can? Both propositions are ridiculous on their face, but hey that’s the game.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I would propose that the weapons manufacturers make automatic weapons for the military and law enforcement agencies. I would propose that “assault rifles” ARE automatic weapons….not the scary looking civilian models.

seawulf575's avatar

AND, @stanleybmanly, you are missing an important piece while you are trying to defend the bias media. You are trying to be smarmy about why they aren’t reporting on the power saw mass murder epidemic. But let’s think about what fair reporting would look like. Someone would report on the relativity of deaths. Knives, for instance kill far more people than rifles. Even pistols kill more people than rifles. Rifles, even those horrid AR-15s, don’t actually kill very many people at all when you look comparatively with other deaths. Yet when someone goes on a mass killing spree with something other than a rifle, the media gives it a blip on the reporting. Why?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@MrGrimm888 What the hell would auto, or semiautomatice weapons like the AR15 be used for other than mass killings? What would be the point? Target practice where the person doesn’t have to aim or have any athletic gun skill whatsoever?

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III I gave a listing of articles where someone used an AR-15 to protect themselves from home invaders or attackers. The fact the media is mainly silent on these doesn’t speak well for the media. In several of those cases, it seems having a gun like that actually saved the person’s life, or the lives of their friends/family.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Dutch. I’ve covered this multiple times. But I will go on again for you, my friend.

An AR,fir example, is like a multi-tool. If you own , or manage large property, it is an excellent choice of weaponry.

It can kill hogs, coyotes, or really anything. And, it will be effective against most animals on this continent. It is a very good tool, for multiple purposes. It’s really the only weapon, that you have to carry, on a ATV. I DO NOT think that it is good for home defense, but otherwise, it can handle almost anything else. My mini-14, is very similar. I used to take it everywhere, in Hell Hole Swamp. It will kill an aggressive alligator, and you can hunt with it. It’s a very handy tool. And like most things, it can be abused. But, to me, it is just a tool… I agree, that it can be purposed, for a mass shooting. But that is NOT it’s purpose, or purpose of design.

9/11, was executed by people with utility knives. No guns, at all. I can kill, with my hands, or a piece of wood, or a brick. If we were to ban EVERYTHING that can kill, we would have nothing…

And yes. Feral hogs, are a real problem down south. Usually, an AR-10, is the preferred weapon for them. It’s just an AR-15, chambered in .308. But these hogs, can be very large, and dangerous. Shotguns, and smaller weapons, can not stop them, killing you. They have thick skulls, and shoulders that can absorb most bullets. If run across a big hog, you should prey, that you have a AR. Even then, you still risk death, if you can’t put enough rounds in them. I recommend that hog hunters carry a pistol, at least 10mm/.40 cal, if they even consider hunting them. That’s because the AR, could jam, or run out of rounds, in a panic situation.

If I lived somewhere that had Tigers, you bet your ass, I’d have an AR, and a powerful handgun.

Humans, as you know, have no real defense against most predators. Guns, like an AR, are an equalizer.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 I don’t see it as a defense of biased coverage. My complaint is with your ridiculous premise and your very slippery manipulation of facts. Let’s start with knives kill more people than rifles. To which my answer is “so what does that have to do with mass murders?” The same holds true for pistols kill more people than rifles. We’re talking about mass killings and if you try to assert here that the weapons of choice for mass killings in the United States are knives, pistols or automobiles, the visible stupidity of such a statement stands without comment. At best, all 3 of those statements bolster my point. The ONLY reason the number of deaths inflicted with pistols, knives or motor vehicles exceeds that of rifles is because the numbers of those “weapons” in circulation dwarf by percentage the automatic rifle numbers (so far). In fact all of your arguments are fatuous and even your facts point to truths opposite your contentions. Of course the murder rate is higher in Baltimore than Honduras. There are more guns loose in Baltimore than on the entire island of Hispanola. Baltimore and Chicago represent what this country will become as surely as the number of weapons increase.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Stan. Some people only respond to violence. I KNOW it is wrong. But is the only way to respond, to more violence…

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly again…are entirely dodging the point of the question. You are making it sound like deaths by knife or pistol (or van for that matter) aren’t as important as mass shootings. Deaths are deaths. Murders are murders. Lives are lost needlessly. And what we find is that only mass shootings are really covered with fervor. The murders in Baltimore crossed 200 for the year a week or two ago. That is about one murder per day in Baltimore. Chicago just had 59 deaths over a weekend. Yet those numbers are basically unreported by the media. They certainly aren’t blasting it out like they do for mass shootings. From a sheer number, those should be big news. But they aren’t. From an oddity aspect as well as lives lost, the knife wielding robber in CA should have been broadcast for days on end. It wasn’t. So why is that? It makes no sense, unless the media really doesn’t want to look at the deaths and their causes, they just want to push a gun control agenda.
Oh! and one other correction…the number of automatic rifle numbers are not going up. AR-15s are not automatic. I don’t know how many times I can tell you that. I am beginning to thing you are just a liar, trying to create facts you know to be false to bolster your arguments.

stanleybmanly's avatar

How can you possibly be so thick headed? OF COURSE daily shootings on Baltimore don’t get sensational coverage. THEY AREN’T NEWS. They’re “business as usual”. They don’t sell papers. Nobody cares! But the fact that PREDICTABLY gunplay is spreading from the ghettos to white suburbs—now THAT is news that ups your circulation and wins you a Pullitzer Prize. The premise that the sensationalism around mass shootings is some is some anti gun press conspiracy is SILLY. Of course one death is equal to another. What you fail to recognize is that mass shooting are sensationalized BECAUSE THEY ARE SENSATIONAL. But the gunners shouldn’t worry. Coverage will drop as they grow ever more commonplace.

seawulf575's avatar

So it isn’t the murders that offend you. So why is it that mass shootings are so outrageous to you? You don’t care about hundreds and hundreds of murders…you don’t care about runaway murder rates. You don’t care about the victims at all. You just care about anti-gun rhetoric. Got it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What possibly makes you believe that I personally am outraged by mass shootings. Reading comprehension!! I have been screaming the exact opposite at you for as long as we’ve been having this discussion. I am NOT outraged I EXPECT this, predict that it can only get worse and yelled til I’m blue in the face the indispensable reason WHY. You truly are some piece of work, summarizing my feelings for victims, and making the idiotic assumption that I am anti gun or people are anti gun for obsessing over mass shooting. SHOOTING PEOPLE IS ANTI GUN you idiot. Talking about it is NOT. Now which of the 2 do you think reflects most negatively on the crusade of the gunners.

seawulf575's avatar

Yet all you can do is try focusing on mass shootings and negating any other deaths. Why is that? Oh wait! That’s right…you are caught so you try deflecting. Sorry hoss…you should know better with me.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The topic is MASS SHOOTINGS. You bring up oddball knife and episodes, and I’m the one deflecting the conversation? I’m caught and boxed in by the facts?

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly So I got moderated for a personal attack. Let me make this less aggressive. I am the one that asked the original question. I put in the topic section that it was about MEDIA COVERAGE. So for you to tell me the topic is MASS SHOOTINGS shows you are way off base. It really is not helping your long-winded arguments.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Of course this discussion is about mass shootings. You really have no business in the ring with me. You don’t even understand or from the sound of it REMEMBER your own question. READ your question, “Why does the media treat this story differently?” Then answer THIS question: “differently than what?” Then come back here you dummy and tell me your question isn’t about mass shootings! Your first line of explanation following your question begins with the mass shootings!!!

stanleybmanly's avatar

Who’s in the corner now?

Dutchess_III's avatar

And it’s @stanleybmanly for the win!

seawulf575's avatar

Of course this discussion isn’t about mass shootings. It is about how the media covers different stories…their reaction or lack thereof. If it was about mass shootings, I would have phrased it to address mass shootings. I would have put MASS SHOOTINGS in as a topic. I wouldn’t have asked why the media treats the stories differently. I even acknowledged, in the question, that the media coverage of the mass shootings was right. But they basically pass on anything else. So it ISN’T about the mass shootings, it IS about how the media reports stuff (or doesn’t). But I get that reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. You are the fool that is obsessed with mass shootings to the point where you create lies and ignore facts so you can build your rant.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
wiscoblond's avatar

This was a top story in the media I follow.

The sad thing is we have so many horrific things happening to us. Of course the worst will take precedence. Guns kill more people than knives.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther