• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How's this for a biased, as well as dishonest headline? [W:43]

WOW... Maybe English wasn't your best subject in school, so let me clear things up for you. The word "cops" is plural for "cop", which indicates more than one.

The headline states "cops shot at black man..." when the fact is that only one (black) "cop" shot the suspect.

Accurate indeed... LMAO

I'm not convinced the black cop shot Scott. In the dashcam video there was a quick flash coming out of the gun in the hand of the cop with the red shirt. Scott was looking right at him when the shots were fired and he doubled over as if the shots came from his direction. The red shirt cop had both hands on his gun as Scott was stepping backward on the other side of the white truck...but as Scott turned to look at him, he suddenly let go of one hand as the shots were fired and seemed to lose control of the gun and almost dropped it like it was a hot potato. Of course that's just my observation...but until proven otherwise I'm going to stick by it. I think the cop in the red shirt was the one that shot Scott...or at least one of them.

Because here's the the thing...if there were fours shots fired...it didn't look like the red shirt cop fired that many shots...more like one or two before he lost control of it. So it is possible that Scott was hit from two different directions...which lends some credence to the story that the black cop killed Scott...and supports the headline that "Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up".
 
Last edited:
Even more predictable, especially here on DP, is that the usual suspects on the right will ignore the observable evidence in favor of their own unsubstantiated bias. Almost everything they believe is based on lies, built on lies, built on more lies. Too bad they don't heed the saviors advice.....


Matthew 7:24-27 (ESV)

24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” ...​


That's one of my favorite passages and one I try to live by. What a shame you can't say the same.

Building a house on the sand? You mean like being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and illegal drugs while disobeying the lawful orders of the police?
 
Building a house on the sand? You mean like being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm and illegal drugs while disobeying the lawful orders of the police?

No...that looks more like what you mean because it's built on sand. The man served his time and didn't deserve to get killed by the police for something he did a decade ago. That's not justice...that's murder...especially if that was the cops motive for shooting him as you seem to allege.
 
I'm not convinced the black cop shot Scott. In the dashcam video there was a quick flash coming out of the gun in the hand of the cop with the red shirt.

No, there is no flash coming from his gun.

What you see is the reflection of the sun off the officers arm, which can be seen several seconds before the shots were fired, when the shots were fired, and after the shots were fired. The gun was black and could only be seen from 2 to 10 seconds before the shots were fired when it had the white truck in the background. If you follow each frame from there, you see that what you concluded was a flash, is the officers arm and wasn't located anywhere near where his actual gun was.

You'll also notice 2 other things... First, when the shots were fired, it visibly startled the officer in red and he instinctively jumped back. That is not how someone firing a gun acts as they're shooting. Second, by the time the last 2 shots were fired, the officer in red had his gun pointed downward.

You can stick to your beliefs if you choose, but the video completely contradicts that belief.
 
I stand 100% behind everything I've posted on this thread and back off of nothing..
Stand where ever you want your post and op have been proven wrong and moot was right. :shrug:
It's a combination of what the headline said, as well as what it didn't say that makes it biased, deceptive and dishonest.
Again that's your issue not the issue of the headline. You assumptions based on your own biased and dishonest have nothign to do with what the actual headline says.

Every other legitimate, main stream media outlet that I have seen, headlined that story properly and without bias except the Chicago Sun Times. They all basically said that Charlotte police released videos of the shooting, without attempting to conclude what those videos depicted... That's what the story is for, to give readers all the information and background so they themselves can reach their own conclusions. The Sun Times not only drew a conclusion about what those videos depicted in their headline, but it was a very one sided conclusion at that.
More opinions that you think matter and think change anything but it doesn't.

Here's an example I came up with, of a biased headline from the other side of the coin that would be just as biased as the one used by the Sun Times:

"Charlotte video shows police demanding suspect to drop his gun more than a dozen times in 40 seconds before black officer opened fire"
Remind us how this makes Moot wrong and your claims in the Op right? That's right it doesn't. It has no impact at all. All you are doing is sharing why YOU made YOUR OWN biased dishonest assumption based on YOUR feelings and it still has nothing to do with the Headline in question nor does it make the headline dishonest.
Inmy world, that headline would be just as biased as the one written by the Sun Times..

Yes we get that, in YOUR world based on your biased dishonest assumptions and not based on what is actually said. That's why your op failed and Moot easily proved you wrong.
Based on what you've written here, I suppose you believe the headline I wrote is just as honest, legitimate and unbiased as the one the Sun Times wrote? Yes?
You can suppose anything you like that it doesn't matter to the fact your op failed, is biased and dishonest and moot proved it wrong. That's the discussion. I have no interests in your opinions, lies or any distractions you want to attempt to make to what is actually being discussed. Your OP is dishonest, the headline is accurate, you lost and moot won.
 
Stand where ever you want your post and op have been proven wrong and moot was right. :shrug:

Again that's your issue not the issue of the headline. You assumptions based on your own biased and dishonest have nothign to do with what the actual headline says.


More opinions that you think matter and think change anything but it doesn't.


Remind us how this makes Moot wrong and your claims in the Op right? That's right it doesn't. It has no impact at all. All you are doing is sharing why YOU made YOUR OWN biased dishonest assumption based on YOUR feelings and it still has nothing to do with the Headline in question nor does it make the headline dishonest.


Yes we get that, in YOUR world based on your biased dishonest assumptions and not based on what is actually said. That's why your op failed and Moot easily proved you wrong.

You can suppose anything you like that it doesn't matter to the fact your op failed, is biased and dishonest and moot proved it wrong. That's the discussion. I have no interests in your opinions, lies or any distractions you want to attempt to make to what is actually being discussed. Your OP is dishonest, the headline is accurate, you lost and moot won.

If you are so right about this, then why is it you avoided answering my question?

Here, let me repost it for you again...

Here's an example I came up with, of a biased headline from the other side of the coin that would be just as biased as the one used by the Sun Times:

"Charlotte video shows police demanding suspect to drop his gun more than a dozen times in 40 seconds before black officer opened fire"

In my world, that headline would be just as biased as the one written by the Sun Times. Based on what you've written here, I suppose you believe the headline I wrote is just as honest, legitimate and unbiased as the one the Sun Times wrote? Yes?
 
If you are so right about this, then why is it you avoided answering my question?

Here, let me repost it for you again...

It's not me it's facts. It's not my believes its reality. That is the heart of your issue. You think we are discussing "beliefs" we are not. I didn't answer your question because it's meaningless to our discussion. It's more dishonesty by you in an attempt to deflect. We aren't falling for it. You WANT to control the conversation to move away from multiple posters proving you wrong and your op failing but we aren't dumb enough to let you.

How about this, take any answer you like, yes or no. Take them both. Neither answer changes the fact that your claim in the OP is what's actually dishonest, biased and was proven wrong by moot and links. Neither answer changes the fact the headline is accurate. You lost, moot won. :)
 
No, there is no flash coming from his gun.

What you see is the reflection of the sun off the officers arm, which can be seen several seconds before the shots were fired, when the shots were fired, and after the shots were fired. The gun was black and could only be seen from 2 to 10 seconds before the shots were fired when it had the white truck in the background. If you follow each frame from there, you see that what you concluded was a flash, is the officers arm and wasn't located anywhere near where his actual gun was.

You'll also notice 2 other things... First, when the shots were fired, it visibly startled the officer in red and he instinctively jumped back. That is not how someone firing a gun acts as they're shooting. Second, by the time the last 2 shots were fired, the officer in red had his gun pointed downward.

You can stick to your beliefs if you choose, but the video completely contradicts that belief.

I just looked at the video again and now it looks more likely that it was the white uniformed officer that was standing next to the red shirt cop. In the dashcam video he is seen running in to join the red shirt cop...a moment or two later, before Scott gets out of his SUV, he moves into the shadows behind the front of the white pick up truck. It's still not clear if he fired all the shots because the cop wearing the body cam came around from the other side of Scott's SUV might've shot Scott as well...but it's too hard to tell. But the in dash cam video definitely looks like Scott was shot from the direction of the uniformed officer taking cover behind the front of the white pickup truck. That would certainly help explain the red shirt cop's cringing from the sound and sudden awkward control of his gun. In fact, he even looks in the direction of the white uniformed officer the instant after the gun shots were fired..as if to make sure the shots weren't being fired at him.
 
It's not me it's facts. It's not my believes its reality. That is the heart of your issue. You think we are discussing "beliefs" we are not. I didn't answer your question because it's meaningless to our discussion. It's more dishonesty by you in an attempt to deflect. We aren't falling for it. You WANT to control the conversation to move away from multiple posters proving you wrong and your op failing but we aren't dumb enough to let you.

How about this, take any answer you like, yes or no. Take them both. Neither answer changes the fact that your claim in the OP is what's actually dishonest, biased and was proven wrong by moot and links. Neither answer changes the fact the headline is accurate. You lost, moot won. :)

Just as I thought... You boldly express your disagreement with me and loudly voice your opinion that the headline from the Chicago Sun Times isn't inaccurate or biased, but have nothing to say about the headline I wrote.

That clearly indicates that you posts are derived from politics and ideology, rather than honesty and truth. When someone let's their fear of political contradiction prevent them from expressing their beliefs, it speaks volumes about the validity of their beliefs, as well as the truthfulness of their words.

Your refusal to answer was precisely what I expect both times I asked... Have a nice evening.
 
I just looked at the video again and now it looks more likely that it was the white uniformed officer that was standing next to the red shirt cop. In the dashcam video he is seen running in to join the red shirt cop...a moment or two later, before Scott gets out of his SUV, he moves into the shadows behind the front of the white pick up truck. It's still not clear if he fired all the shots because the cop wearing the body cam came around from the other side of Scott's SUV might've shot Scott as well...but it's too hard to tell. But the in dash cam video definitely looks like Scott was shot from the direction of the uniformed officer taking cover behind the front of the white pickup truck. That would certainly help explain the red shirt cop's cringing from the sound and sudden awkward control of his gun. In fact, he even looks in the direction of the white uniformed officer the instant after the gun shots were fired..as if to make sure the shots weren't being fired at him.

I may get heated and insulting at times, but I do give credit where credit is due and this happens to be one of those times.

Good post.
 
Just as I thought... You boldly express your disagreement with me and loudly voice your opinion that the headline from the Chicago Sun Times isn't inaccurate or biased, but have nothing to say about the headline I wrote.
No I didn't point out any disagreement, many posters pointed out that you were wrong. I also haven't presented my opinion to you either. Continuing to make stuff up like you did in the OP does't help the fact that you were proven wrong and moot was right.
That clearly indicates that you posts are derived from politics and ideology, rather than honesty and truth. When someone let's their fear of political contradiction prevent them from expressing their beliefs, it speaks volumes about the validity of their beliefs, as well as the truthfulness of their words.
Wrong again this is just more made up false assumption based on nothign but dishoenst and biased like your failed OP. There are zero facts you can post that support what you said above it will all be your opinion. :)
Your refusal to answer was precisely what I expect both times I asked... Have a nice evening.
So you expected your dishonest deflections to fail? Good then you realize I'm too smart for your deflections so I accept your concession. Also I will have a great evening because your OP failed, it was proven wrong, you lost and moot won. The fact remains the headline was accurate and you have done nothign to change that. It's a good evening indeed!
 
I may get heated and insulting at times, but I do give credit where credit is due and this happens to be one of those times.

Good post.

Thank you Grim, I appreciate that. :)


So are we in agreement that more than one cop could've fired the shots?
 
No I didn't point out any disagreement, many posters pointed out that you were wrong. I also haven't presented my opinion to you either. Continuing to make stuff up like you did in the OP does't help the fact that you were proven wrong and moot was right.

Wrong again this is just more made up false assumption based on nothign but dishoenst and biased like your failed OP. There are zero facts you can post that support what you said above it will all be your opinion. :)

So you expected your dishonest deflections to fail? Good then you realize I'm too smart for your deflections so I accept your concession. Also I will have a great evening because your OP failed, it was proven wrong, you lost and moot won. The fact remains the headline was accurate and you have done nothign to change that. It's a good evening indeed!

Look, let's start over here... You said in your first post "There's nothing dishonest about the headline at all.". Now putting aside my argument that they used the plural "cops" when it was only one police officer who shot the man, I would like to ask your opinion about something that directly related to the statement you made....

Is the use of selective truths in a story's headline, which could easily lead people into embracing a false, distorted or incomplete conclusion, what you would deem to be an honest headline?

I ask you that question because it's important to understand how you define "honest" as it pertains to this op.

*******

My answer to that question would be "no", I don't consider such a headline to be honest... Therefore, it is my contention that the headline in that story is dishonest by omission, because it used selective facts that convey a one-sided/misleading conclusion to their readers about what those videos depicted... aka, the headline was biased, which is exactly the reason I started this thread to begin with.

.
 
Thank you Grim, I appreciate that. :)


So are we in agreement that more than one cop could've fired the shots?

Sure it's possible, but there is absolutely no evidence I've seen or heard of indicating that more than one officer fired their weapon. No witnesses to the shooting or anyone else who was present at the scene, has made a statement or even suggested anything that would corroborate such a belief.
 
Look, let's start over here...

If you want to start over we can start with you admitting your OP failed, you were wrong and moot was right. If you can't do that there's nothign to move on too. See I respect honest, I respect integrity, I respect when people admit what is fact, opinion and or assumption. The headline is not dishonest. The assumption you built on the headline are just that assumptions. If you can admit that then we can move on. If not I have no interest moving on in a to a different discussion in which you won't be honest in. We do not get to define what honest is, it has a definition.
 
If you want to start over we can start with you admitting your OP failed, you were wrong and moot was right. If you can't do that there's nothign to move on too. See I respect honest, I respect integrity, I respect when people admit what is fact, opinion and or assumption. The headline is not dishonest. The assumption you built on the headline are just that assumptions. If you can admit that then we can move on. If not I have no interest moving on in a to a different discussion in which you won't be honest in.

So once again, you refuse to answer a question about your own beliefs. A question that directly relates to the topic of this op, and directly relates to the statement you yourself made on your very first post here.

That truly speaks volumes.

.
 
So once again, you refuse to answer a question about your own beliefs. A question that directly relates to the topic of this op, and directly relates to the statement you yourself made on your very first post here.

That truly speaks volumes.

.

HAHAHAHA That's what I thought, you want to start over but wont be honest and actually do it. My own "beliefs", like yours are meaningless to facts, you thinking they matter shows your problem though. Fact remains your op failed, you were proven wrong and moot was right. The headline is not dishonest. When you can admit that let us know, then we can talk about anything you want, if you can't be honest then no we can't. :)
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
You all need to stop making this personal... or else.
 
Moderator's Warning:
You all need to stop making this personal... or else.

Is asking her to clarify her definition of "honest" as it pertains to the statement she made concerning the headline in question, considered to be making things "personal"?
 
HAHAHAHA Moot 1, Grim 0
The headline is accurate as written. There's nothing untrue about it. The job of every reader is to have questions and not go by headlines only which is just a small descriptor. Any questions should be in the article and any assumptions on top of the article headline are just that, personal assumptions. There's nothing dishonest about the headline at all.

If you want to get technical, like you do here, how many COPS shot this man?
 
Confirmation bias getting in some overtime in this thread.
 
HAHAHAHA That's what I thought, you want to start over but wont be honest and actually do it. My own "beliefs", like yours are meaningless to facts, you thinking they matter shows your problem though. Fact remains your op failed, you were proven wrong and moot was right. The headline is not dishonest. When you can admit that let us know, then we can talk about anything you want, if you can't be honest then no we can't. :)

Okay ... how about this headline ... pass honesty muster with your criteria?

MAN REPEATEDLY TOLD BY COPS TO DROP WEAPON - WIFE SHOUTS "DON'T DO IT" - MAN SHOT BY COP
 
Looking at the picture of the gun,, That's a small 38 cal. Easily hidden in the hand of a medium/large person's hand. and probably almost invisible in a black mans hands.. the camera video is just to crappy to really see anything for sure.. although some seem to be able to see the most minute details..

As far as he headline: I could care less..

The headline that no one see's is this:

8 killed 43 wounded in Chicago this last weekend.

or

Amazing weekend in Chicago: No innocent children were killed this past weekend. Just gang members and older folk...

djl
 
Is asking her to clarify her definition of "honest" as it pertains to the statement she made concerning the headline in question, considered to be making things "personal"?

Moderator's Warning:
Do NOT quote Mod boxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom