Comparing how news media headlines and reports on the same story

Roitrn · Feb 8, 2023

nursej22 said:

Yes, to me, at least, a witness who refuses to be identified is less credible than someone who remains anonymous. Interestingly, many who originally chose anonymity while reporting negative things about the former president, identified themselves later. Trump is famous for seeking retribution on anyone who discredits him.

Yes Trump verbally attacks those who disagree with him. I am unaware of him using the DOJ or military to seek retribution. Do you have any sources beyond what he says?

toomuchbaloney · Feb 8, 2023

Roitrn said:

Yes Trump verbally attacks those who disagree with him. I am unaware of him using the DOJ or military to seek retribution. Do you have any sources beyond what he says?

Members of the DOJ said that Trump called and pressured them about his election fraud fantasy. Jeff Sessions only lasted through a year of Trump's pressure, personal attacks and interference. AG Barr lied to the American people about the findings in the Mueller report on Trump's behalf after Sessions wouldn't do it. Trump was prepared to elevate another AG to facilitate his retention of power after he lost the 2020 election.

Roitrn · Feb 8, 2023

nursej22 said:

Yes, to me, at least, a witness who refuses to be identified is less credible than someone who remains anonymous. Interestingly, many who originally chose anonymity while reporting negative things about the former president, identified themselves later. Trump is famous for seeking retribution on anyone who discredits him.

I would agree that a witness who remains anonymous is less credible. Sometimes the reason for anonymity should be considered.

Considering the political climate, perhaps the person feels they will recieved backlash for their statement or observation? Considering it is about "white privilege " a highly charged topic. Also the offender is a POC. We have seen the passion behind some activist when a POC is accused of something. Especially by a white person.

Perhaps the witness is white and doesn't want to be labeled as racist? Or doesn't want to be part of a political point?

It does seem like a random statement. There are far more inflammatory statements that could have been made if the person wanted to make up a lie to make the murder seems more racially motivated.

My main point is that if the racial demographics were reversed, some media would include that in the headline whether the claim was collaborated or not.

Example was the story about the man who attacked a disabled black boy because he falsely accused him of steeling a bike. The man said nothing racial during the attack, no witnesses said he did. Only vage comparison to a "lynching " and suggestions that it may be "racial motivated" by "some who say might...." Yet in the headline, the race of both were prominently displayed.

In my view this is how the media excites and agitated people. As Baloney alludes to. So I agree. The media takes a direct role in causing agitation and excitement by how they choose to report.

Roitrn · Feb 8, 2023

toomuchbaloney said:

Members of the DOJ said that Trump called and pressured them about his election fraud fantasy. Jeff Sessions only lasted through a year of Trump's pressure, personal attacks and interference. AG Barr lied to the American people about the findings in the Mueller report on Trump's behalf after Sessions wouldn't do it. Trump was prepared to elevate another AG to facilitate his retention of power after he lost the 2020 election.

So he was a verbal bully? These acts seem that they could be illegal? Why did they not report this as he was doing it?

I agree he is a verbally aggressive. However verbal aggression void of threats is not a crime. It is freedom of speech.

I get the impression that you are concerned with what people believe and then say. Or believe and don't say. Primarily the members of the Republican party. Do you think that freedom of speech laws should be changed? How? And who gets to decide what is freedom of speech and what is not. The political administration in the white house? The SCOTUS?

I know it's frustrating when people believe and think things are not true. However it comes back to people including politicians are free to believe and say whatever they wish. As long as it doesn't break the law. Like incitement, threats etc.

What is you solution to people and politicians that believe and say lies? Obviously the Republicans who seem to be your primary concerns of the people who believe and say lies?

toomuchbaloney · Feb 8, 2023

Roitrn said:

I would agree that a witness who remains anonymous is less credible. Sometimes the reason for anonymity should be considered.

Considering the political climate, perhaps the person feels they will recieved backlash for their statement or observation? Considering it is about "white privilege " a highly charged topic. Also the offender is a POC. We have seen the passion behind some activist when a POC is accused of something. Especially by a white person.

Perhaps the witness is white and doesn't want to be labeled as racist? Or doesn't want to be part of a political point?

It does seem like a random statement. There are far more inflammatory statements that could have been made if the person wanted to make up a lie to make the murder seems more racially motivated.

My main point is that if the racial demographics were reversed, some media would include that in the headline whether the claim was collaborated or not.

Example was the story about the man who attacked a disabled black boy because he falsely accused him of steeling a bike. The man said nothing racial during the attack, no witnesses said he did. Only vage comparison to a "lynching " and suggestions that it may be "racial motivated" by "some who say might...." Yet in the headline, the race of both were prominently displayed.

In my view this is how the media excites and agitated people. As Baloney alludes to. So I agree. The media takes a direct role in causing agitation and excitement by how they choose to report.

Or the person wants to remain anonymous because they made that up... shrugs... it's unverified and not terribly believable.

Whether or not the racial demographics were reversed, Fox did run the story with the unverified and inflammatory language in the headline. I don't care to speculate how it would have been different when we have so much actual reporting that we can discuss.

I still don't understand what your point is about the reporting on the guy who choked the younger man. Are you suggesting that the race of the individuals shouldn't have been reported? Lynching comes to mind anytime a white citizen acts out their feeling that they can put their hands on black men, detain them or somehow restrain or control them simply because they think the black man may have done something inappropriate or illegal. Most residents of the USA live under the understanding that we don't have that right to treat other people that way... at least in this century.

Roitrn · Feb 8, 2023

toomuchbaloney said:

Or the person wants to remain anonymous because they made that up... shrugs... it's unverified and not terribly believable.

Whether or not the racial demographics were reversed, Fox did run the story with the unverified and inflammatory language in the headline. I don't care to speculate how it would have been different when we have so much actual reporting that we can discuss.

I still don't understand what your point is about the reporting on the guy who choked the younger man. Are you suggesting that the race of the individuals shouldn't have been reported? Lynching comes to mind anytime a white citizen acts out their feeling that they can put their hands on black men, detain them or somehow restrain or control them simply because they think the black man may have done something inappropriate or illegal. Most residents of the USA live under the understanding that we don't have that right to treat other people that way... at least in this century.

Yes. They could have made it up. We've seen allot of false witness reports recent history. A high profile case of the Justified Police shooting of Michael Brown. A witness stated the now discredited "hands up, don't shoot" claim. Below is the DOJ report of witness accounts. Which were inconsistent with the evidence.

I do care to discuss the possibilities as it relates to the topic.

My point about the story about the young man attacked is that there were not witness claims that the crime was racially motivated. Not even alleged by the victims but yet the media had it front and centre in its headlines. The race of the people involved.

If the racial demographics are not part of the story/crime, I see no other reason to include it other than to inflame the target demographic or political party.

Are you suggesting any act of physical violence towards a black person by a white person is akin to lynching? By default? Even an assault where there is no evidence of racial implications? As the story in question?

It's not okay to suspect a black person of a crime if the person is white?

What? Perhaps I misinterpreted your word choice and paragraph formation?

Nobody has the right to treat anyone that way. I can agree!

doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1_230208_133204.pdf

toomuchbaloney · Feb 8, 2023

Roitrn said:

So he was a verbal bully? These acts seem that they could be illegal? Why did they not report this as he was doing it?

I agree he is a verbally aggressive. However verbal aggression void of threats is not a crime. It is freedom of speech.

I get the impression that you are concerned with what people believe and then say. Or believe and don't say. Primarily the members of the Republican party. Do you think that freedom of speech laws should be changed? How? And who gets to decide what is freedom of speech and what is not. The political administration in the white house? The SCOTUS?

I know it's frustrating when people believe and think things are not true. However it comes back to people including politicians are free to believe and say whatever they wish. As long as it doesn't break the law. Like incitement, threats etc.

What is you solution to people and politicians that believe and say lies? Obviously the Republicans who seem to be your primary concerns of the people who believe and say lies?

Yes, it's clear that Trump is a verbal and perhaps, a physical bully. However, It is not okay for the president to attempt to use the DOJ or the State Department for his personal or political gain. Trump was impeached for trying to use the Department of State to create the appearance of Ukrainian dirt on Biden. Trump tried to use Sessions to interfere in the Mueller investigation and then hired an AG who was happy to do that.

You are correct. I'm concerned about the increase in violent rhetoric and imagery relative to national conflict or disagreement. The threats of violence against school board members are coming from angry conservatives. The threats to election officials came from conservatives. The plot to kidnap a governor was conspired by conservatives. It was armed conservatives who occupied state houses to protest pandemic mitigation. It was conservative House members who used violent imagery in their campaigns. It was conservatives who tried to overthrow the 2020 election results in a violent attack on the Capitol.

No, I don't think that we need to change speech laws.

My solution is to hold people accountable for their illegal speech. Trump should be indicted for his incitement. Trump should be held accountable for his conspiracy to retain lost power. Politics is not a free pass to break our laws.

toomuchbaloney · Feb 8, 2023

Roitrn said:

Yes. They could have made it up. We've seen allot of false witness reports recent history. A high profile case of the Justified Police shooting of Michael Brown. A witness stated the now discredited "hands up, don't shoot" claim. Below is the DOJ report of witness accounts. Which were inconsistent with the evidence.

I do care to discuss the possibilities as it relates to the topic.

My point about the story about the young man attacked is that there were not witness claims that the crime was racially motivated. Not even alleged by the victims but yet the media had it front and centre in its headlines. The race of the people involved.

If the racial demographics are not part of the story/crime, I see no other reason to include it other than to inflame the target demographic or political party.

Are you suggesting any act of physical violence towards a black person by a white person is akin to lynching? By default? Even an assault where there is no evidence of racial implications? As the story in question?

It's not okay to suspect a black person of a crime if the person is white?

What? Perhaps I misinterpreted your word choice and paragraph formation?

Nobody has the right to treat anyone that way. I can agree!

doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1_230208_133204.pdf

Reporting involved putting the known facts and details of a specific event or issue out into the public space. The who, what, when, where, how, why of things. Reporting on the specific demographics of the people involved in an incident is simply noting facts. A description of the involved people might include physical or emotional observations. There's no reason not to report these finite details and facts.

That seems a bit of a stretch, the notion that any violence against a black man committed by a white man is tantamount to lynching. Maybe you can't see how a random white man thinking that he can physically restrain a black kid by grabbing his neck... simply because he THINKS there's been some infraction, reflects a culture where blacks did not share our current freedoms or rights. It takes a long time to grow fully out of that cultural influence. It wasn't that long ago in our history that if a white man made a credible accusation against a black man it ended very poorly for the black man because the white men felt they had every right to punish the accused. So they grabbed them. Till was lynched the year before my wife was born, I was 6. George Floyd was lynched in 2020, my grandson turned 6.

Of course it's okay to suspect a black of committing a crime against a white. That seems like a silly question. Lots of black people are in jail because they committed crimes against white people or black people or Asians or... businesses. Crimes get regular people arrested rather quickly a good bit of the time. People who commit crimes should be punished and helped to make better choices and find sustainable life work.

Roitrn · Feb 8, 2023

toomuchbaloney said:

Yes, it's clear that Trump is a verbal and perhaps, a physical bully. However, It is not okay for the president to attempt to use the DOJ or the State Department for his personal or political gain. Trump was impeached for trying to use the Department of State to create the appearance of Ukrainian dirt on Biden. Trump tried to use Sessions to interfere in the Mueller investigation and then hired an AG who was happy to do that.

You are correct. I'm concerned about the increase in violent rhetoric and imagery relative to national conflict or disagreement. The threats of violence against school board members are coming from angry conservatives. The threats to election officials came from conservatives. The plot to kidnap a governor was conspired by conservatives. It was armed conservatives who occupied state houses to protest pandemic mitigation. It was conservative House members who used violent imagery in their campaigns. It was conservatives who tried to overthrow the 2020 election results in a violent attack on the Capitol.

No, I don't think that we need to change speech laws.

My solution is to hold people accountable for their illegal speech. Trump should be indicted for his incitement. Trump should be held accountable for his conspiracy to retain lost power. Politics is not a free pass to break our laws.

Yes. Trump was impeached by a majority democrat congress and then found not guilty in the senate. As it is, he has not been charged criminally. There for it has to be accepted he is did not violate any laws unless this changes. There doesn't seem to be any criminal charges from the Jan.6 committee either. So it can be concluded that he did not use illegal speech.

So the senate found him not guilty for his speech and alleged abuse of power. You feel as though his speech should be illegal? So you do wish to change freedom of speech laws?

The people who were at the capital who were most likely conservative. Both rioters and peaceful protestors. So the conservatives as a whole ate guilty for Jan.6? By association?

Is the Democrat party guilty for the Summer of 2020 riots? Because presumably the rioters were Democrat?

There have been threats against Republican officials as well. So I disagree that "conservatives are the ones....". I see this happening by both sides. I guess we can discuss who does what more and who is worse than the other. However this is reminiscent of elementary school yard drama.

Accountability for illegal speech should happen to those who violate the law. Trump was impeached then found not guilty. There have been no criminal charges as of yet. So his speech was legal. As it stands now under the law. So you do want to change freedom of speech laws to include what Trump said.

"On January 13, 2021, President Trump was impeached again following the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, becoming the only U.S. president to be impeached twice. Unlike his first impeachment, 10 House Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of impeachment. The former president was found not guilty in the Senate trial, though seven Republican senators joined Democrats in voting to convict."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-trump-impeached-house-of-representatives

toomuchbaloney · Feb 8, 2023

Roitrn said:

Yes. Trump was impeached by a majority democrat congress and then found not guilty in the senate. As it is, he has not been charged criminally. There for it has to be accepted he is did not violate any laws unless this changes. There doesn't seem to be any criminal charges from the Jan.6 committee either. So it can be concluded that he did not use illegal speech.

So the senate found him not guilty for his speech and alleged abuse of power. You feel as though his speech should be illegal? So you do wish to change freedom of speech laws?

The people who were at the capital who were most likely conservative. Both rioters and peaceful protestors. So the conservatives as a whole ate guilty for Jan.6? By association?

Is the Democrat party guilty for the Summer of 2020 riots? Because presumably the rioters were Democrat?

There have been threats against Republican officials as well. So I disagree that "conservatives are the ones....". I see this happening by both sides. I guess we can discuss who does what more and who is worse than the other. However this is reminiscent of elementary school yard drama.

Accountability for illegal speech should happen to those who violate the law. Trump was impeached then found not guilty. There have been no criminal charges as of yet. So his speech was legal. As it stands now under the law. So you do want to change freedom of speech laws to include what Trump said.

"On January 13, 2021, President Trump was impeached again following the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, becoming the only U.S. president to be impeached twice. Unlike his first impeachment, 10 House Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of impeachment. The former president was found not guilty in the Senate trial, though seven Republican senators joined Democrats in voting to convict."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-trump-impeached-house-of-representatives

The investigations are ongoing.

The senate didn't do their jobs... they said that the insurrection impeachment should be a legal matter after saying that Trump was responsible. It was a constitutional and congressional matter FIRST because that was the pathway for removing the man from office and insuring that he couldn't hold power again. The republican senate failed to perform their constitutional duty. And now they have to contend with the specter of another Trump candidacy.

I'm retired. I watched every minute of both impeachments live.

Roitrn · Feb 8, 2023

toomuchbaloney said:

The investigations are ongoing.

The senate didn't do their jobs... they said that the insurrection impeachment should be a legal matter after saying that Trump was responsible. It was a constitutional and congressional matter FIRST because that was the pathway for removing the man from office and insuring that he couldn't hold power again. The republican senate failed to perform their constitutional duty. And now they have to contend with the specter of another Trump candidacy.

I'm retired. I watched every minute of both impeachments live.

So the senate is in violation of its constitutional duty? The senate did something illegal?

If it was a legal matter then why wasn't he charged?

It followed the legal pathway and the results are as they are. The impeachment followed through to the senate as it should do under the law.

If Trump was charged criminally and then found not guilty, would you say the criminal court did not do its duty as well? Where does this end?

I would feel allot more secure in Trumps guilt if he was charged for something. I speculate if there were probable cause to do so and the democrats/DOJ thought there could have been enough evidence to find him guilty, they would have jumped on that pony a long time ago. Until he is charged criminally and found guilty, I have to take the actions against him as political theater.

toomuchbaloney · Feb 9, 2023

Roitrn said:

Yes. Trump was impeached by a majority democrat congress and then found not guilty in the senate. As it is, he has not been charged criminally. There for it has to be accepted he is did not violate any laws unless this changes. There doesn't seem to be any criminal charges from the Jan.6 committee either. So it can be concluded that he did not use illegal speech.

So the senate found him not guilty for his speech and alleged abuse of power. You feel as though his speech should be illegal? So you do wish to change freedom of speech laws?

The people who were at the capital who were most likely conservative. Both rioters and peaceful protestors. So the conservatives as a whole ate guilty for Jan.6? By association?

Is the Democrat party guilty for the Summer of 2020 riots? Because presumably the rioters were Democrat?

There have been threats against Republican officials as well. So I disagree that "conservatives are the ones....". I see this happening by both sides. I guess we can discuss who does what more and who is worse than the other. However this is reminiscent of elementary school yard drama.

Accountability for illegal speech should happen to those who violate the law. Trump was impeached then found not guilty. There have been no criminal charges as of yet. So his speech was legal. As it stands now under the law. So you do want to change freedom of speech laws to include what Trump said.

"On January 13, 2021, President Trump was impeached again following the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, becoming the only U.S. president to be impeached twice. Unlike his first impeachment, 10 House Republicans joined Democrats in voting in favor of impeachment. The former president was found not guilty in the Senate trial, though seven Republican senators joined Democrats in voting to convict."

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-trump-impeached-house-of-representatives

The January 6th committee did refer Trump for criminal charges... they were not the authority to charge it indict. So, no we can't assume that he didn't break laws. All of the abundant evidence available suggests that he broke laws.

Sure there have been threats against Republicans... heck Steve Scalise got shot and a gunman threatened Justice Kavanaugh from a distance. That doesn't diminish the pattern of violent thought and action that I laid out that DID come from conservatives.

This isn't an issue of who is worse... this is about whether or not we can acknowledge what is happening when millions of conservative Americans can be convinced that falsehoods are true and that they should be angry about it. Can we talk about how dangerous it is to just accept that talk of civil war is becoming acceptable in some conservative circles... even among legislators?