The peaceful protesters

[Belk]

Facts can be reported in a way that causes the viewer to be swayed to believe certain things while discounting others. For example, I saw a 3 minute news segment on ABC this morning where they were talking about the banning of the use of tear gas on rioters in one of Wisconsin's larger cities. The journalist played long clips of his interviews with doctors that talked about how bad the gas is, and he played more clips of individuals who agreed with the same viewpoint, and even protesters who didn't like it (or the police in general). Toward the end of the segment, he finally played a part of his interview with the police chief who said tear gas was necessary to avoid having to use more lethal forms of force. His comments were limited to no more than 10 seconds before the story went right back to how "bad" tear gas is.

Airing one side of an issue while giving a token amount of time to an opposing viewpoint indicates bias rather than objectivity. Is that the type of reporting you want to get your information from about what's happening in the world?

Yes. Any news story is going to be approached from a particular angle. There are always going to be someone who views the angle you present the story from as incorrect. Do you have a solution? Last I heard conservatives were opposed to the fairness doctrine which allows news organizations to do things such as...

I will now hear your "whatabout Fox" and "whatabout Trump" arguments.

...poison the well. So what do you propose? Should I dismiss your point of view out of hand because it is biased or should we acknowledge their are different points of view and debate the pros and cons of them?

 

[hislegacy]

Now that the Feds have left. Here is the peaceful protestors pouring paint on an elderly lady and cussing her out.

 

[Desk trauma]

Any update on who killed this infamous pig and perhaps some rational why an omnivore should be horrified by that?

Anything?

Bueller?