• 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]

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:


[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO

:doh

.
 
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:


[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO

:doh

.

Oh...you mean they told the truth? Because on the dash cam video, that's exactly what it looked like happened. :doh
 
Oh...you mean they told the truth? Because on the dash cam video, that's exactly what it looked like happened. :doh

LMAO... I suppose in your world there's nothing about that headline that is in any way one-sided, deceptive, or untrue.

You're a hoot.... Moot.


.
 
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:


[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO

:doh

.

Clearly you dont get out much.....
 
Another disgusting headline printed for no other reason than to incite more misinformation, hatred, and violence.

I see nothing in these videos that proves anything.
 
Last edited:
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:


[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO

:doh

.

It is hard to say, but the man did not make the appearance of trying to shoot anyone or even escape. What we need is the headcam of the officer that shot.
 
I have to admit...I'm having a real hoot watching you dig your own hole, Grim. :lamo

That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.

Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.


The fact you don't see it is par for the course...

"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.

Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.
 
It is hard to say, but the man did not make the appearance of trying to shoot anyone or even escape. What we need is the headcam of the officer that shot.

I'm not debating the incident itself. There are plenty of threads for that.

This post is about the obviously biased, one-sided headline the chicago Sun Times used for their story about the release of those videos. That headline is something I would expect to see on the Daily Kos, DU, the Huffington Post, or some far left blog, but not in the news section of a main stream newspaper like the Chicago Sun Times. Doesn't Chicago have enough gun violence problems without fanning the flames with distorted **** like this?

.
 
Last edited:
That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.
Perhaps thats because none of the four or five videos show him with a gun in his hand. Not one.

Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.
In order to do that, you'd have to forget that it was two plain clothes cops in an unmarked vehicle. How would Scott know they were cops and not two supremacists trying to rob or kill him? Scott didn't get out of his car until uniformed officers showed up in a marked police car.


The fact you don't see it is par for the course...

"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.

Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.
Just because you're a conservative, doesn't mean you get your own set of facts, either.


If you look at the dash cam video you can see who shot him....and it wasn't the black officer. In the video, after getting out of his car, Scott was slowly backing up into the sunlight by the white truck that the cop in the red shirt and a uniformed officer were using for cover. As Scott moved past the truck, he was taking away their cover.....and that's when the cop in the red shirt shot him. Still...there's no visual evidence in any of the videos that Scott had a gun in his hand....so the headline had it exactly right.
 
Last edited:
The headline does what it is intended to do and that is inflame the black community!
The media acts like the videos from the police dept has to be in HD and show the suspect
shooting at the officers while they dodge each shot. Then they think the police should shoot
the gun out of his hand with no one hurt. TV fantasy stuff not real world.

There are times when the police make mistakes but this shooting is not one of them.
Why were the police yelling about 10 times to drop the gun? The officer that shot the suspect
was black.
 
I'm not debating the incident itself. There are plenty of threads for that.

This post is about the obviously biased, one-sided headline the chicago Sun Times used for their story about the release of those videos. That headline is something I would expect to see on the Daily Kos, DU, the Huffington Post, or some far left blog, but not in the news section of a main stream newspaper like the Chicago Sun Times. Doesn't Chicago have enough gun violence problems without fanning the flames with distorted **** like this?

.

These things are always handled with biased bigotry lately.
 
These things are always handled with biased bigotry lately.

Ain't that the truth... and people like Moot defend such deplorable behavior by the media.
 
That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.

Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.



The fact you don't see it is par for the course...

"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.

Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.

I disagree. That's one of the requirements.
 
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:


[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]
Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO

:doh

.

I have to admit...I'm having a real hoot watching you dig your own hole, Grim. :lamo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...of-keith-lamont-scott/?utm_term=.e1a80aed35ed

So what did the headline get wrong?

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.
 
HAHAHAHA Moot 1, Grim 0

Really?

So let me see here... You agree with Moot that the cop who shot the man was not black, but the white officer in red?

You also agree that the man might have mistaken cops with bullet proof vests clearly marked with "Police" on them, as white supremacists out to kill a black man?

Your score keeping is as nuts as Moot's delusions are.

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.

So you believe that "cops", aka, multiple police officers shot the man as the headline states, and that is wasn't just one police officer who shot him?

That headline clearly gives readers a false and misleading impression of what took place, but since it agrees with your ideological beliefs, you also choose to defend it like Moot.

I'm just glad that politics don't distort my reality and take away my cognitive reasoning like it apparently does for you two.
 
The headline does what it is intended to do and that is inflame the black community!
The media acts like the videos from the police dept has to be in HD and show the suspect
shooting at the officers while they dodge each shot. Then they think the police should shoot
the gun out of his hand with no one hurt. TV fantasy stuff not real world.

There are times when the police make mistakes but this shooting is not one of them.
Why were the police yelling about 10 times to drop the gun? The officer that shot the suspect
was black.

Even if the cops waited until after the suspect shot the usual suspects would just say he wasn't a threat any more because he had less ammo.
 
Yes really, thats just how facts work.
So let me see here... You agree with Moot that the cop who shot the man was not black, but the white officer in red?
What? I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.

You also agree that the man might have mistaken cops with bullet proof vests clearly marked with "Police" on them, as white supremacists out to kill a black man?
Once again your inventions don't concern me. I repeat "I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won."
Your score keeping is as nuts as Moot's delusions are.
It's 100% accurate since its based on what I said and not your fantasies. I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.


So you believe that "cops", aka, multiple police officers shot the man as the headline states, and that is wasn't just one police officer who shot him?
I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.
That headline clearly gives readers a false and misleading impression of what took place, but since it agrees with your ideological beliefs, you also choose to defend it like Moot.
The headline doesn;t do that in anyway, your assumptions on top the headlines does that, not the actual headlines. You also have no clue what my ideological beliefs are, but you are proving my point. You are assuming things and Deming them as true, that's your issue and mistake to deal with. Your assumptions are wrong and moot proved that.
I'm just glad that politics don't distort my reality and take away my cognitive reasoning like it apparently does for you two.
See now this is nothing more than a personal attack and its because you have no ability to honest and unbiased support your claims about the headline which have been proved wrong by multiple posters now.

I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate. Anything you are choosing to make up or deflect to is on you. The headline is accurate and he proved it. You claimed the headline is dishonest but yet you can't prove it. You failed, he won.
 
Even if the cops waited until after the suspect shot the usual suspects would just say he wasn't a threat any more because he had less ammo.

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.
 
I repeat" I agree with the fact and moot that the Headline is accurate.

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
 
WOW... Maybe English wasn't your best subject in school, so let me clear things up for you.

How look another personal attack since you were proven wrong and are now lashing out hahahah

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

It's funny watching your posts drown and you trying to move the goal posts. Wrong S does not have to mean plural all the time, especially in head lines. It is simply a descriptor. Like "Steelers pass all over the browns" or "Seals Kill Bin laden" Only the quarterback of the steelers actually passed over the browns ONE quarterback. One seal killed bin laden, ONE but yet headlines still used the S. So the ONLY dishonesty is you claiming the headline is biased and dishonest because it' not, this is also supported by the fact you have nothing to support your biased and dishonest claim and you completely backed off and ran from your other lies you tried to sell us. The headline is accurate and you have nothign to support otherwise, you lost moot and facts won. :)
 
Check out this headline from the "news" section of the Chicago Sun Times, on their story about the shooting videos released yesterday by Charlotte police:


[h=1]"Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"[/h]

Come on folks... It doesn't get more distorted and blatantly one sided than that. LMAO

:doh

.


LOL! Best just to laugh at the ignorant cop-haters.

You will NEVER be able to educate them.......haters gonna hate. Forever.
 
That headline implies that an unarmed man, backing away from and in full compliance with police, was shot and killed by a group of officers because he was black.

Forget about the fact that he wouldn't get out of his vehicle when police first asked him to, and when he finally did (after police attempted to break the passenger side window), was holding a gun in his hand and refused more than a dozen orders by police to "drop the gun". Him being black had nothing to do with this shooting, but that didn't stop the Sun Times for implying it did.



The fact you don't see it is par for the course...

"Cops" didn't shoot the man, it was one officer who shot him and that officer also happened to be black, completely discrediting the implication that the shooting was racially motivated.

Just because you are a liberal, doesn't mean you have to abandon all common sense.

First of all.......being a Liberal usually comes with abandoning common sense.

Second.......yes, the headline is obviously pandering to the ignorant lynch mob of demonstrators and rioters and encouraging them in their embarrassingly stupid behavior.

Follow the money and you find all the motives for all the players.
 
So the ONLY dishonesty is you claiming the headline is biased and dishonest because it' not, this is also supported by the fact you have nothing to support your biased and dishonest claim and you completely backed off and ran from your other lies you tried to sell us. The headline is accurate and you have nothign to support otherwise, you lost moot and facts won. :)

I stand 100% behind everything I've posted on this thread and back off of nothing.

It's a combination of what the headline said, as well as what it didn't say that makes it biased, deceptive and dishonest.

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.

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?

.
 
Back
Top Bottom