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

[Derp]

Perhaps thats because none of the four or five videos show him with a gun in his hand. Not one.

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.


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.

It wasn't the cop in red that shot him, if you look closely at where his gun is pointed when the shots are fired and notice no recoil or smoke from his gun.

Also this

Brentley Vinson: What we know about the Charlotte police officer - CNN.com

 

[Moot]

It wasn't the cop in red that shot him, if you look closely at where his gun is pointed when the shots are fired and notice no recoil or smoke from his gun.

Also this

Brentley Vinson: What we know about the Charlotte police officer - CNN.com

Yes, I think you're right...it wasn't the red shirt cop....


http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...shonest-headline-w-43-a-4.html#post1066353674

 

[bubbabgone]

yes, i think you're right...it wasn't the red shirt cop....


http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...shonest-headline-w-43-a-4.html#post1066353674

MAN REPEATEDLY TOLD BY COPS TO DROP WEAPON - WIFE SHOUTS "DON'T DO IT" - MAN SHOT BY COP


Is it all true?
Any bias in that headline?

 

[Grim17]

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.

Can you please answer the following question, so myself and everyone else understands what your interpretation of "honest" is:

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?​

A discussion about the headline can't take place, if you won't disclose what you deem to be honest and dishonest.

.

 

[Moot]

MAN REPEATEDLY TOLD BY COPS TO DROP WEAPON - WIFE SHOUTS "DON'T DO IT" - MAN SHOT BY COP


Is it all true?
Any bias in that headline?

In the wife's video..we can hear her telling the cops that he doesn't have a gun and "don't do it"....and then..."did you shoot him, did you shoot him?"

But none of the videos show Scott holding a gun....but we can see him backing up as he gets shot four times. If we all have to go by are the videos then both headlines are true, imo.

 

[bubbabgone]

In the wife's video..we can hear her telling the cops that he doesn't have a gun and "don't do it"....and then..."did you shoot him, did you shoot him?"

But none of the videos show Scott holding a gun....but we can see him backing up as he gets shot four times. If we all have to go by are the videos then both headlines are true, imo.

To be accurate, she said "Don't do it Keith".

Anyway ... do either deliver a bias message?

 

[eohrnberger]

Can you please answer the following question, so myself and everyone else understands what your interpretation of "honest" is:

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?​

A discussion about the headline can't take place, if you won't disclose what you deem to be honest and dishonest.

.

Quite true. Especially when . . . .

Man shot by Charlotte police was sold stolen gun, authorities say

and

Charlotte Police Say Gun Found at Scene Had the Deceased Man’s Fingerprints and DNA

Now why would cops order someone to put down the gun, if they didn't see he had one in his hand? It kinda logically follows that they saw it in his hand, and then told him to put it down, doesn't it?

 

[Grim17]

Quite true. Especially when . . . .


and

Charlotte Police Say Gun Found at Scene Had the Deceased Man’s Fingerprints and DNA

Now why would cops order someone to put down the gun, if they didn't see he had one in his hand? It kinda logically follows that they saw it in his hand, and then told him to put it down, doesn't it?

It certainly does to me, especially when you take into account this took place in broad daylight and police officers were all in very close proximety with unobstructed views of the suspect.

.

 

[eohrnberger]

It certainly does to me, especially when you take into account this took place in broad daylight and police officers were all in very close proximety with unobstructed views of the suspect.

.

The next challenge is to repudiate the family's false claim that he had a book in his hand. Granted, human's memories and perceptions being what they are, I'm sure they believe it, but it just isn't proven out by the facts.

Was a book recovered at the scene? I've read no reports that one had been. However, we do have a gun recovered at the scene.

This is like the Ferguson lie 'Hand up! Don't shoot!'. Frankly, I don't know why the cops even bother patrolling those neighborhoods.
If they don't arrest someone, they are blamed for whatever crime comes after.
If they stop and questions someone, or arrest someone, they are blamed for racial profiling.
If they defend themselves, and shoot someone, they are blamed for murder.

Let those neighborhoods stew for a bit in the beds they've made for themselves. These neighborhoods would be crying for police protection and patrolling soon enough, just as they've done in Baltimore.

Rash of homicides in West Baltimore have residents asking: Where are police?

Baltimore Residents Who Decried Police in Their Neighborhoods Now Want Them Back

 

[TobyOne]

The narrative changes when a black cop shoots a black suspect. It goes from "racist cops shoot black" man to "institutional racism causes police to shoot blacks". Or the new thing that Hilary parroted "implicit racism".

 

[Derp]

Yes, I think you're right...it wasn't the red shirt cop....


http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...shonest-headline-w-43-a-4.html#post1066353674

Everything I have seen identifies Brentley Vinson as the officer who opened fire.


Officer Brentley Vinson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/u...ails-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html

 

[Moot]

Everything I have seen identifies Brentley Vinson as the officer who opened fire.


Officer Brentley Vinson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/u...ails-of-the-police-shooting-in-charlotte.html

Yeah, I just saw a still from the body cam video with what appears to be Brently Vinson with a clear view of Scott the instant he is shot. Still couldn't see a gun in Scott's hand, though.

see :50 on video...if you don't see it try the youtube page. It shows a single frame of Scott looking straight at the body cam officer and a man standing off to the side between the front of the white SUV and dark SUV and pointing a gun.

 

[Derp]

Yeah, I just saw a still from the body cam video with what appears to be Brently Vinson with a clear view of Scott the instant he is shot. Still couldn't see a gun in Scott's hand, though.

see :50 on video...if you don't see it try the youtube page. It shows a single frame of Scott looking straight at the body cam officer and a man standing off to the side between the front of the white SUV and dark SUV and pointing a gun.

Good find.

I can't tell for sure who the officer is to the right, looks to me to be the other white officer.

 

[Grim17]

oops.... mistake.

 

[rational1]

'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.'

So 'Cop shoots black man 4 times as he backed up'

Is that better, there is nothing in that headline that assumes that he was unarmed or armed, that's an assumption that you made.
Try this on for size... California: "Cop shoots black man 4 times as he backed up"


Does that give any indication of anything besides a black man being shot four times? My only assumption from it, is that he was probably shot in the back, how bout you?

 

[Grim17]

'Is that better, there is nothing in that headline that assumes that he was unarmed or armed, that's an assumption that you made.
Try this on for size... California: "Cop shoots black man 4 times as he backed up"


Does that give any indication of anything besides a black man being shot four times? My only assumption from it, is that he was probably shot in the back, how bout you?

Because the headline only says the suspect was backing up and that he was black, it leaves readers with the false impression that he was doing nothing wrong (because backing up is not against the law, or seen as aggressive or dangerous) and that his race (aka police racism) was a factor in the cops (instead of one black officer's) decision to shoot the suspect 4 times.

It's known as "cause and effect" and the Sun Times headline was without a doubt, misleading to many of the people who read it... and since it was misleading in favor of one side over the other, that's what makes the headline biased.

What makes the writing of that headline so incredibly sad, is that the videos weren't definitive in determining whether the suspect had a gun in his hand or not, which was the primary reason the public demanded their release... So the Sun Times should have never put anything related to a conclusion in their headline in the first place (especially as misleading as theirs was), and done what every other main stream media outlet did and just say that Charlotte police had released the videos. Hell, they could have even said the videos were inconclusive on whether the man had a gun in his hand or not.

You edited version of the headline still gives that same, misleading impression that the suspect did nothing to justify being shot.

.

 

[LaylaWindu]

If you want to get technical, like you do here, how many COPS shot this man?

See post #22

 

[LaylaWindu]

Can you please answer the following question, so myself and everyone else understands what your interpretation of "honest" is:

You are the only one confused and there is no interpretation of honest it has a very clear , I can't change its definition nor can you that's why your OP completely fails.

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?​

This was already answered repeatedly by multiple posters. You or anybody else "inventing false, distorted or incomplete conclusions" is your own fault it doesn't impact the the honesty of the headline which has already been proven.

A discussion about the headline can't take place, if you won't disclose what you deem to be honest and dishonest.

.

Of course it can and it already has because there's already a definition of honest and the headline fits that and in no way fits the definition of dishonest. This is why your OP completely failed, moot was right and your op is wrong. The headline is not dishonest. When you can admit that let us know, then we can talk about anything you want.

 

[Brewdog]

Let me understand this thread... A black police officer murdered a black man because he was merely black and was just minding his own business?

So, then civil-minded black people go loot and burn things down. Because that's what civilized people do. And you guys are in support of that.

Got it.

 

[LaylaWindu]

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

I don't have a criteria, the dictionary does though.

MAN REPEATEDLY TOLD BY COPS TO DROP WEAPON - WIFE SHOUTS "DON'T DO IT" - MAN SHOT BY COP

By definition there's nothing "dishonest" about your headline.

 

[Grim17]

This was already answered repeatedly by multiple posters. You or anybody else "inventing false, distorted or incomplete conclusions" is your own fault it doesn't impact the the honesty of the headline which has already been proven.

I didn't ask multiple posters the question, I asked YOU the question... And once again, you have avoided answering it.

Why is it you have such a stern, unwavering opinion about the headline and myself, but you can't answer a question that is directly related to a response that you yourself you gave?

Let's see if the 4th time is a charm:

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?

.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I didn't ask multiple posters the question, I asked YOU the question... And once again, you have avoided answering it..

You have already been told posting lies will not work I have answered your question multiple times :lol:

Why is it you have such a stern, unwavering opinion about the headline and myself, but you can't answer a question that is directly related to a response that you yourself you gave?.

Repeating your lie also wont work, again I have answered you multiple times.

Let's see if the 4th time is a charm:

Go for it each time you do and each time I answer your post looks more and more moronic haha

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'll repeat my answer that complete owns your question again, you know the part of the post you conveniently didn't quote which is VERY telling

This was already answered repeatedly by multiple posters. You or anybody else "inventing false, distorted or incomplete conclusions" is your own fault it doesn't impact the the honesty of the headline which has already been proven.

Your post was wrong, Moot was right and you can't even qoute which part of the headline is dishonest and prove it. Fact remains nothing in the headline is dishonest. Anything else? :lamo

 

[NonoBadDog]

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 been giving this some thought. I don't think it is bias as much as it is inflammatory. That is how news agencies sell their wares, drama.

 

[Grim17]

I'll repeat my answer that complete owns your question again, you know the part of the post you conveniently didn't quote which is VERY telling

I never asked you whether any such headline was was dishonest, I asked if such a headline was honest.

I don't like assuming how a person judges things, but since you are hell bent on not answering the actual question i posed, I'm just going to have to assume that your answer is:

"Yes, I deem using selective truths in a headline that can mislead people to reaching false or incorrect conclusions, as an honest headline."

Assuming that to be your answer (because you refuse to give a proper one), you obviously don't believe there is any such thing as a "lie by omission". Just because a headline doesn't contain falsehoods (which this one did contain), doesn't mean it is honest. An honest headline doesn't lead people to believe something that isn't true, and that is exactly what that headline did.

Because the headline only says the suspect was backing up and that he was black, it leaves readers with the false impression that a) he was doing nothing wrong (because backing up is not against the law, or seen as aggressive, defiant, or dangerous) and b) his race was a factor (implying police racism was involved) in the cop(s) (instead of one black officer's) decision to shoot the suspect 4 times.

It's known as "cause and effect" and the Sun Times headline was without a doubt, misleading to many of the people who read it... They describe the effect (getting shot 4 times) but lead readers to an untrue cause for that action, which was his absolute refusal to cooperate with police by ignoring over a dozen orders by officers to drop his gun... His race played no part in that confrontation and his backing up was part of his refusal to cooperate with police.

The headline was without a doubt misleading, because it implies that the video depicts police shooting an unarmed black man who was in retreat and doing nothing wrong or illegal. It implies the suspect was innocent and police were in the wrong and over reacted. That not only makes that headline dishonest, but it also makes it biased.

Words make all the difference, and it's obvious by the words used in that Chicago Sun Times headline, that the writer wanted his readers to embrace his opinion about what took place, rather than allowing them to come to conclusions on their own.


.

 

[Grim17]

I have been giving this some thought. I don't think it is bias as much as it is inflammatory. That is how news agencies sell their wares, drama.

It's inflammatory alright, but It's also biased... just not in a political sense. By implication, it attempts to paint the suspect as a blameless victim and the police as having unjustly shot a man for no other apparent reason than he was black.

.