SUV runs through crowd at Christmas parade in Waukesha WI... (2 Viewers)

[brandon8283]

Did the car hit the people under its own volition? When someone shoots into a crowd of people do we say “man fires into crowd”, or do we say “gun fires into crowd?” If you feel we are going into semantics here, then so be it, we can leave it there.

This is such a stupid argument just so you can find something to rail against the media about.

A man hit people with a car. The people were hit by a car. A man in a car.

No one is trying to hide the fact that there was a man driving the car. It’s inane.

 

[Xeno]

This is such a stupid argument just so you can find something to rail against the media about.

A man hit people with a car. The people were hit by a car. A man in a car.

No one is trying to hide the fact that there was a man driving the car. It’s inane.

I agree with you. We generally say something like, "A car ran through a crowd."

Where I disagree is your last statement. WAPO's headline outright said, "Caused by an SUV." That's garbage writing and garbage journalism. English is already an imprecise language and that headline is just trying to obfuscate what happened.

 

[brandon8283]

that headline is just trying to obfuscate what happened.

How?

Do you think people who read that headline were confused and thought maybe this was a terrible case of a new autonomous vehicle that became self-aware?

Who do you think is being confused by that headline?

 

[Xeno]

How?

Do you think people who read that headline were confused and thought maybe this was a terrible case of a new autonomous vehicle that became self-aware?

Who do you think is being confused by that headline?

Nobody is. That's why WAPO was forced to take the article down after massive backlash overnight. Even they know it was a purposely obtuse way to write their headline. "Caused by man in SUV," would have been a much better way to write it.

 

[brandon8283]

Nobody is. That's why WAPO was forced to take the article down after massive backlash overnight. Even they know it was a purposely obtuse way to write their headline. "Caused by man in SUV," would have been a much better way to write it.

So no one was confused. Therefore, the communication was clear and in no way misleading.

So why were people outraged?

 

[El Caliente]

I agree with you. We generally say something like, "A car ran through a crowd."

Where I disagree is your last statement. WAPO's headline outright said, "Caused by an SUV." That's garbage writing and garbage journalism. English is already an imprecise language and that headline is just trying to obfuscate what happened.

I feel the “a car ran through a crowd” title sells short what actually happened (gives it the impression that this is something that happens every day), which leads into your next paragraph (and speaks to what so many people take issue with). There is a selling short of the action. The car didn’t cause those deaths, the man driving it did.

 

[brandon8283]

I feel “a car ran through a crowd” title sells short what actually happened, which leads into your next paragraph (and speaks to what so many people take issue with). There is a selling short of the action. The car didn’t cause those deaths, the man driving it did.

What motivation would the media have in underselling this tragedy?

 

[El Caliente]

What motivation would the media have in underselling this tragedy?

What medium or media doesn’t report with bias?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Someone needs to lock up that car, and throw away its keys.

Oh so now you’re blaming the keys

 

[El Caliente]

Oh so now you’re blaming the keys

I was going to blame the battery for giving the car life, but don’t get me charged up over it.

 

[Dago]

One could make a generalized argument that the media, by making news entertainment, has encouraged nutballs but that isn't what posters are trying to say and singling out just one media source is ridonkulous

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I get that people don't like the media, but I'm really baffled by this line of criticism.

I'm not seeing any difference in the reporting as I've ever seen when people are hit by a car. Even when discussing it we say "such and such was hit by a car". That's not blaming the car, that's just stating a fact of how the injury or death occurred.

I'm not watching much reporting. I've never been into podcasts and social media as an information source (I believe that's why we are in the waning days of America). I've largely unplugged from media because I think the nation is headed for really awful times and I'm trying to focus on joy and my family while I can. I've become a hermit, so other than here I don't really talk to anyone. However, the complaints I'm seeing here are pretty baffling to me. What little I've seen and heard it seems the media is covering this story appropriately.

I think this is all a bit oversimplified- and you usually don’t do that
‘Podcasts’ and even ‘social media’ are (mostly) self-curated
Certainly the is a ‘foreign bot’ issue with social media that must be confronted
But fussing about podcasts is like fussing about the library- sure you can find bad/harmful books in the library, but there are many more great/important books in there
* I will caveat this to say that in the last year or so, there has been a lurch toward media companies gobbling up independent podcasts and hosts - there might be a battle for independent podcast content but that seems like it’s years away

 

[brandon8283]

What medium or media doesn’t report with bias?

I didn’t say there was or wasn’t bias.

I asked you to explain why the media would want to undersell this tragedy. In what way would that underselling serve their bias?

 

[bclemms]

Now that emotions are running really high let's clear some things up.

There is no such thing as the mainstream media. It's a word that right wing propaganda groups came up with to undermine real news making their opinion based shows the only one "tellling you the real truth". If there is such a thing I would love someone to define it for me. Do we go by ratings? Does that mean since FoxNews is the #1 rated cable news program they are mainstream? If so why are they always talking so badly about themselves?

Next, let's talk about what is news and what is not news. Fox and CNN are not news. They don't even consider themselves news, it's opinion TV with political agendas using fear and racism as well as other emotional topics to create reactions. They are political soap operas.

Places like Newsmax and OAN are purely political propaganda and do not even pretend to disclose funding. Political influencers on Twitter are no better. Just because they have a blue check mark doesn't make them news, it just makes them verified as a person with some notoriety.


Quit confusing your entertainment and need for outrage with news and this entire argument suddenly disappears.

 

[BobE]

Next, let's talk about what is news and what is not news. Fox and CNN are not news. They don't even consider themselves news, it's opinion TV with political agendas using fear and racism as well as other emotional topics to create reactions. They are political soap operas.

I would add MSNBC to this

Places like Newsmax and OAN are purely political propaganda and do not even pretend to disclose funding. Political influencers on Twitter are no better. Just because they have a blue check mark doesn't make them news, it just makes them verified as a person with some notoriety.

Are these 2 channels even on TV? I have never seen them so curious

Quit confusing your entertainment and need for outrage with news and this entire argument suddenly disappears.

I'd say just quit watching all news (except for weather) and things will be much better