TexasCHLforum.com

Nothing against the officer, I wish her the best prayers for her recovery. My aunt works for the state dept and carries a glock so this one kinda hits home. What I dislike about these stories is the bias from the media. Since the woman was LE of some sort this was considered an accident in the line of duty. If it were a normal citizen her sanity would be in question and so would her intelligence. Why does she own a gun, why was she practicing with a LOADED gun, why does a regular person need a gun like that without a manual safety.

This media attitude of LE vs Citizen is very constant in the news.

I.E.

On/Off duty LE shoots criminal= acceptable, most of the time regardless of circumstances.
Citizen shoots criminal= questionable & frowned upon even if justifiable, circumstances depending.
CHL holder shoots criminal= less questionable & more justified but still looked down upon depending on circumstances.

This is what I notice in the media not my personal opinion. The media is responsible for shaping people's attitude towards what they report on. This isn't a good thing since most of the time they have a bias towards normal citizen defending themselves and lump them in with the criminal element. Not all of the time but from what I see it's very obvious with the exception of a few incidents.

Rant Over

...when I was a lad and news was primarily READ, they taught us what, when , where, who, and why were expected in every story...now, any of those which conflict with the media mogul's agenda may be left out or slanted at will...the agenda trumps the facts...besides, they feel the public's too lazy to read only the facts and reach a logical opinion...so they give us theirs...

speedsix wrote:...when I was a lad and news was primarily READ, they taught us what, when , where, who, and why were expected in every story...now, any of those which conflict with the media mogul's agenda may be left out or slanted at will...the agenda trumps the facts...besides, they feel the public's too lazy to read only the facts and reach a logical opinion...so they give us theirs...

That approach is viable because there are very few folks left who can think logically and critically enough to recognize and reject propaganda when they see it.

Too many folks today are only capable of repeating the last thing they heard repeated most loudly or most often, even when it is obviously false or even directly opposed to their own self interests.

speedsix wrote:...when I was a lad and news was primarily READ, they taught us what, when , where, who, and why were expected in every story...now, any of those which conflict with the media mogul's agenda may be left out or slanted at will...the agenda trumps the facts...besides, they feel the public's too lazy to read only the facts and reach a logical opinion...so they give us theirs...

My mother taught me to take the news at 50% fact 50% entertainment value. She said the news when she was growing up was facts and reporting. Now days its more twisting and contorting trying to make it into something interesting or lean a certain direction politically. The sad thing so many people take it to heart. I hope someday that people will write off television, radio, internet, etc for what it is. Opinion.

smtimelevi wrote:

speedsix wrote:...when I was a lad and news was primarily READ, they taught us what, when , where, who, and why were expected in every story...now, any of those which conflict with the media mogul's agenda may be left out or slanted at will...the agenda trumps the facts...besides, they feel the public's too lazy to read only the facts and reach a logical opinion...so they give us theirs...

My mother taught me to take the news at 50% fact 50% entertainment value. She said the news when she was growing up was facts and reporting. Now days its more twisting and contorting trying to make it into something interesting or lean a certain direction politically. The sad thing so many people take it to heart. I hope someday that people will write off television, radio, internet, etc for what it is. Opinion.

The news has ALWAYS had a slant to it...papers in the olden days were well noted to do such things. Do some research on "yellow journalism"...even if you know what the phrase itself means, looking up the history of it can be informative. The "news" is not much more than propaganda, one way or the other. YOU have to filter out what is important and what is spin...they all have a hard time writing the story without SOME little nugget of truth...but its up to you to dig that out.

Heartland Patriot wrote:
The news has ALWAYS had a slant to it...papers in the olden days were well noted to do such things. Do some research on "yellow journalism"...even if you know what the phrase itself means, looking up the history of it can be informative. The "news" is not much more than propaganda, one way or the other. YOU have to filter out what is important and what is spin...they all have a hard time writing the story without SOME little nugget of truth...but its up to you to dig that out.

Things were a little better in 2 or more newspaper towns, although today I think things a better than they used to be because of the Interwebs, where every story seems to have a thousand takes and opinions on it.

repeating the last thing they heard repeated most loudly or most often

Propaganda campaigns have always used the "repeat often and loudly" tactic. While "the news" has always had a bit of propaganda in it, my feeling is that what we have today as "the news" is more propaganda than news. The same messages and/or slanted innuendo appears prevalent in all "news" outlets, whether it be the so-called MSM with their leftist, socialist slant on things, or the conservative "media" denouncing the MSM. In this age of sound bites and media overload, too many in the population take everything they hear at face value (it will surely be repeated soon, cementing their understanding). They are incapable of discernment because they fail to understand that there are three sides to most issues/stories -- and the one between the two extremes is usually most likely.