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

[NonoBadDog]

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.

.

We will have to agree to disagree here. I can see why you think that but I don't think it is as complicated as that.

 

[LaylaWindu]

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

WOw the desperation (AKA BS) is getting deep, if its not dishonest its 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,.

There you go repeating that lie and causing your post to fail. Do you think posting lies will ever help you wrong claim. It just helps me own post after post of yours.

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."

You can assume what ever you want, you'll be wrong just like the assumption in your OP is. It's your assumption it's selective truth and that has no impact on honest or dishonest. The headline reminds honest and not dishonest.

Assuming that to be your answer (because you refuse to give a proper one)

again repeating the lie allowing me to own your posts further hahahaha

,

you obviously don't believe there is any such thing as a "lie by omission".

Hey look another false assumption just like your failed OP Its getting VERY obvious where the issue is. Your false assumptions are the issue. try not to make them in the future.

Just because a headline doesn't contain falsehoods (which this one did contain), doesn't mean it is honest.

Never claimed that and there are zero false hoods in the healine, this is way you can;t point one out.

An honest headline doesn't lead people to believe something that isn't true, and that is exactly what that headline did.

Wrong again, thats what YOU tried to do the headline doesn;t do that in anyway, your personal and subjective assumption did that.

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.

Thank you for further proving yourself wrong, the headline doesn't do ANY of that. That's how YOUR brain works and that's meaningless. Your assumptions and your thoughts in your head don't matter. They are your issue to deal with.

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.

Link? Proof? Facts? anybody that assumed the things you say did just that. Assumed. That's your issue and theirs. When I read it, all I did is read it, then I read the article. I made no assumption because i knew that would be stupid and there's nothign to support any assumption I would make.

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.

Again links, proof, facts? The headline does't imply what you claim in anyway, thats what happened in your head because of your thoughts, not the headline. the headline isn't dishonest in anyway. Again this is way you can't quote the dishonest part and keep running from that request. Which is also very telling.

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.
.

Words do make all the difference and the ones you choose to use aren't in the headline they are the ones you made up in your head and that's you issue, not the headlines.

Your post was wrong, Moot was right and you can't even quote which part of the headline is dishonest and prove it. We've been waiting for that for over 60 posts. Fact remains nothing in the headline is dishonest. Anything else? :lamo

 

[LaylaWindu]

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.

.

Can you point out where the words blameless and unjustly are and where it says he was shot because of his race in the headline? Oh that's right they aren't in the headline that's what you thought in your head.:lamo

 

[Grim17]

WOw the desperation (AKA BS) is getting deep, if its not dishonest its honest

There you go repeating that lie and causing your post to fail. Do you think posting lies will ever help you wrong claim. It just helps me own post after post of yours.

You can assume what ever you want, you'll be wrong just like the assumption in your OP is. It's your assumption it's selective truth and that has no impact on honest or dishonest. The headline reminds honest and not dishonest.

again repeating the lie allowing me to own your posts further hahahaha

,
Hey look another false assumption just like your failed OP Its getting VERY obvious where the issue is. Your false assumptions are the issue. try not to make them in the future.


Never claimed that and there are zero false hoods in the healine, this is way you can;t point one out.

Wrong again, thats what YOU tried to do the headline doesn;t do that in anyway, your personal and subjective assumption did that.

Thank you for further proving yourself wrong, the headline doesn't do ANY of that. That's how YOUR brain works and that's meaningless. Your assumptions and your thoughts in your head don't matter. They are your issue to deal with.


Link? Proof? Facts? anybody that assumed the things you say did just that. Assumed. That's your issue and theirs. When I read it, all I did is read it, then I read the article. I made no assumption because i knew that would be stupid and there's nothign to support any assumption I would make.


Again links, proof, facts? The headline does't imply what you claim in anyway, thats what happened in your head because of your thoughts, not the headline. the headline isn't dishonest in anyway. Again this is way you can't quote the dishonest part and keep running from that request. Which is also very telling.

Words do make all the difference and the ones you choose to use aren't in the headline they are the ones you made up in your head and that's you issue, not the headlines.

Your post was wrong, Moot was right and you can't even quote which part of the headline is dishonest and prove it. We've been waiting for that for over 60 posts. Fact remains nothing in the headline is dishonest. Anything else? :lamo

If people knew none of the details of the shooting and saw that headline, never bothering to read the story, tell me how they could possibly conceive that the suspect was in fact shot because he ignored police and refused to comply with more than a dozen police orders to drop his gun?

Reading that headline gives no indication that the suspect was in any way acting unlawfully, just that he was a black man who was shot by police while backing up. If you believe that doesn't imply that police may have acted haphazardly, than you've lost your ability to be objective.

 

[LaylaWindu]

If people knew none of the details of the shooting and saw that headline, never bothering to read the story, tell me how they could possibly conceive that the suspect was in fact shot because he ignored police and refused to comply with more than a dozen police orders to drop his gun?

Tell me how anybody could ever know what happened without reading ANY article? If a person reads a headline and thinks that tells them everything they are an idiot. THere are ZERO headlines that tell everything. That's why they are headlines and the articles exists.

Reading that headline gives no indication that the suspect was in any way acting unlawfully, just that he was a black man who was shot by police while backing up. If you believe that doesn't imply that police may have acted haphazardly, than you've lost your ability to be objective.

It doesn't need too nor is required to, that's the fact you ignore. The fact remains headline was honest and was not dishonest in anyway.

There's nothing that you can post that will make the headline dishonest, this why you are again running from that question. It's been fun owning your posts, embarrassing them, proving them wrong and letting them dig a deeper and deeper hole but now I'm just going to continue to do it with one question that was asked multiple times over 60 posts ago.

"Please quote the part of the headline that is dishonest and prove it" thank you.

 

[DaveFagan]

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?

.

I see the Charlotte shooting as partially justified. I do not see anything wrong with the headline, as it is exactly true and the implications are in your head. The Charlotte riots could have been prevented if the deceased's wife had stated that he had a gun. I presume that you are a LEO and want to justify all the shootings in the USA. The cops are wrong and their current Policies are wrong and it is past time for change. Too many innocents being killed by the bad policy. The Police are supposed to be high paid, responsible social babysitters, not a force that sees the taxpayers that pay their salaries as likely enemy combatants.

 

[bubbabgone]

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


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

Both headlines were intended to mislead.
That's not supposed to be the job of journalism.
At least it hadn't been, but journalism has perverted itself into justifying its own practice of social & political activism.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

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

.

You are laughing over a man being shot, regardless of circumstances, how can this be amusing to you if you assign any value to that man's life at all. You lot always wonder why your being pigeon holed as racists. Well, its because you have the ability to make a man's death seem like a joke. That questioning the circumstances around police misconduct is a laughable matter. If racists would stop crying foul, let's wait for the police approved facts, fear mongering. After every shooting they would have a better time defending the police in a case by case situation. But posts like this only make people who see your cavalier attitude towards a human being losing his life and think, well another racist running his mouth. Someone should do something about these police shootings... Fyi not seen the video, have no idea of the circumstances, not even sure which of the many shootings of unarmed black people this is, but I can tell from your post which side I should be on. And that's the side that doesn't find humour in the death of another person. Criminal or not.

 

[Grim17]

You are laughing over a man being shot...

No, I wasn't.

I was laughing at the Chicago Sun Times for publishing such a deceptive and dishonest headline. That makes the rest of your post quite irrelevant.


.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

Well it's easy to say you don't see something if you didn't want to see it in the first place and you don't receive electric shocks of increasing intensity for lying.



Just to be clear, this is precisely how stupid your lies look. The POLICE report, linked in post #6, SAYS:


To accompany the video, police also issued a “case update” on Saturday. It is published below, in its entirety.

. . .

Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene.

So what's your angle? The police lied when they said he was shot while backing away because they wanted to "incite more misinformation, hatred, and violence" (against whom, themselves)?




Disgraceful.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Well it's easy to say you don't see something if you didn't want to see it in the first place and you don't receive electric shocks of increasing intensity for lying.



Just to be clear, this is precisely how stupid your lies look. The POLICE report, linked in post #6, SAYS:


To accompany the video, police also issued a “case update” on Saturday. It is published below, in its entirety.

. . .

Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene.

So what's your angle? The police lied when they said he was shot while backing away because they wanted to "incite more misinformation, hatred, and violence" (against whom, themselves)?




Disgraceful.

You are the one who is too stupid to know that the title was a incitement.

Keep up with your pompous self !

 

[LaylaWindu]

Both headlines were intended to mislead.
That's not supposed to be the job of journalism.
At least it hadn't been, but journalism has perverted itself into justifying its own practice of social & political activism.

How do you know they were "intended" to mislead" and how is it misleading unless the reader CHOOSES to make stuff up.

 

[bubbabgone]

How do you know they were "intended" to mislead" and how is it misleading unless the reader CHOOSES to make stuff up.

How do you know they were "intended" to mislead"

Because they were inaccurate. An accurate story would have been honest. That's supposed to be the goal of journalism. It's easier to tell the truth without an agenda.

how is it misleading unless the reader CHOOSES to make stuff up.

The reader goes by what they read and what they read was not accurate so they reacted accordingly.
Like "hands up don't shoot" was a lie. People believed it then and some still do because it conforms to a tale they want told.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Because they were inaccurate. An accurate story would have been honest. That's supposed to be the goal of journalism. It's easier to tell the truth without an agenda.

Please quote the part that is dishonest.

The reader goes by what they read and what they read was not accurate so they reacted accordingly.

What is not accurate?

Like "hands up don't shoot" was a lie. People believed it then and some still do because it conforms to a tale they want told.

What you are describing are stupid people. If a person reads a headlines and then chooses to create a story on top of the headline or assume there's no more info they are stupid. Now Please answer my questions "How do you know they were "intended" to mislead"" and what is inaccurate.

 

[bubbabgone]

Please quote the part that is dishonest.


What is not accurate?



What you are describing are stupid people. If a person reads a headlines and then chooses to create a story on top of the headline or assume there's no more info they are stupid. Now Please answer my questions "How do you know they were "intended" to mislead"" and what is inaccurate.

Here we go again. If they didn't want to create a suggestion in their readers' minds why didn't they go with the headline I suggested ?

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

It's certainly accurate.
The answer is because they try promote an inaccurate storyline of their choosing for their own reasons.
You might have noticed there are large sections of media that do that regularly.
You sound as though you don't believe the media censors stories depending on details like race.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Here we go again. If they didn't want to create a suggestion in their readers' minds why didn't they go with the headline I suggested ?

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

It's certainly accurate.
The answer is because they try promote an inaccurate storyline of their choosing for their own reasons.
You might have noticed there are large sections of media that do that regularly.
You sound as though you don't believe the media censors stories depending on details like race.

Weird, you didn't answer my questions. Ill ask you again 1.) what is inaccurate about the headline in the OP, 2.)How do you know they were "intended" to mislead".
All you have done so far is tell me your feelings what YOU think the intent was but all that's just YOUR feelings. What makes it true and you haven;t answer my first question at all.

 

[bubbabgone]

Weird, you didn't answer my questions. Ill ask you again 1.) what is inaccurate about the headline in the OP, 2.)How do you know they were "intended" to mislead".
All you have done so far is tell me your feelings what YOU think the intent was but all that's just YOUR feelings. What makes it true and you haven;t answer my first question at all.

I'm trying to be clear, if a headline doesn't accurately communicate what happened but instead creates a false notion for the reader, it's not accurate.
Now your turn.
You really don't believe the media censors stories depending on details like race, do you.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I'm trying to be clear, if a headline doesn't accurately communicate what happened but instead creates a false notion for the reader, it's not accurate.
Now your turn.
You really don't believe the media censors stories depending on details like race, do you.

You still aren't answering my questions, why? Its not my turn until you actually answer. 1.) what is inaccurate about the headline in the OP, 2.)How do you know they were "intended" to mislead".

 

[bubbabgone]

You still aren't answering my questions, why? Its not my turn until you actually answer. 1.) what is inaccurate about the headline in the OP, 2.)How do you know they were "intended" to mislead".

Been answered twice already.
That you insist you still don't get it kind of explains why the intent of the headline escaped your keen analytical eye ... assuming you really don't get it.
Either way, you seem intent on making some kind of point that usually would come from the worst troll among us determined to play word games.
I usually would have backed away from such things before now but I thought maybe I could take you seriously.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Been answered twice already.
That you insist you still don't get it kind of explains why the intent of the headline escaped your keen analytical eye ... assuming you really don't get it.
Either way, you seem intent on making some kind of point that usually would come from the worst troll among us determined to play word games.
I usually would have backed away from such things before now but I thought maybe I could take you seriously.

No you haven't pointed out what part is inaccurate once. Why do people lie on this forum. Here the headline in the OP:
""Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up"

Now tell us what is inaccurate, I know you can't because theres nothign inaccurate about it b ut Im just going to keep asking. After that tell us how you know it was "intended" to mislead". Show your proof of intent. Oh that's right you can't do that either

 

[Grim17]

Been answered twice already.
That you insist you still don't get it kind of explains why the intent of the headline escaped your keen analytical eye ... assuming you really don't get it.
Either way, you seem intent on making some kind of point that usually would come from the worst troll among us determined to play word games.
I usually would have backed away from such things before now but I thought maybe I could take you seriously.

It also explains why I stopped engaging in dialog with her.

 

[Grim17]

I'm trying to be clear, if a headline doesn't accurately communicate what happened but instead creates a false notion for the reader, it's not accurate.

If I wrote the following story:

One night I dreamed that I pulled out a loose brick from a 20 story building with hundreds of children inside, the building then completely collapsed, and I shot out of bed and proclaimed to my wife standing at the foot of the bed "I've murdered hundreds of innocent children". my words clearly shocked her. It took a few seconds before she came to the realization that I had just woke from a nightmare. It's a nightmare I'll never forget.

According to her logic, the following headline would be accurate:

Grim17 tells shocked wife he's murdered hundreds of innocent children


lmao

 

[LaylaWindu]

It also explains why I stopped engaging in dialog with her.

Because your posts got their asses handed to them and you couldn't point out what was actually inaccurate

 

[Grim17]

Because your posts got their asses handed to them and you couldn't point out what was actually inaccurate

Whatever you have to tell yourself...

I don't suppose you would like to respond to post #97... It would go a long way in explaining how you view what is accurate and what is not accurate. Of course we tried this before and if history is any indicator, you will:

a) not directly address the post (to avoid putting you beliefs on the record)
b) you'll play more word games as you've continued to do today, or
c) like most liberals, you'll just run away and pretend the post doesn't exist.

.

 

[LaylaWindu]

Whatever you have to tell yourself...

I don't suppose you would like to respond to post #97... It would go a long way in explaining how you view what is accurate and what is not accurate. Of course we tried this before and if history is any indicator, you will:

a) not directly address the post (to avoid putting you beliefs on the record)
b) you'll play more word games as you've continued to do today, or
c) like most liberals, you'll just run away and pretend the post doesn't exist.

.

Just pointing out facts you are unable to refute. Sorry I won't be playing your dishonest games until YOU answer my questions which YOU continue run from. Ill just keep owning the false OP just like other posters did. Here's the headline ""Charlotte video: Cops shot at black man 4 times as he backed up" You claimed its inaccurate and dishonest. Please point out the inaccurate and dishonest part and prove it.