So you don’t think CNN is biased. I do. As well as all the right/conservative ones too.
Still, I only asked what difference the source makes if it’s accurate. I’m guessing since you provided other sources the answer is none?
No, you claimed that if we (General we) didn’t step out of our liberal news bubble, we’d think the riots ended months ago. I’m pointing out that my liberal bubble has reported on the ongoing riots extensively. Here’s a couple more opinions. Maybe you could share which liberal news sources haven’t covered the riots, leading us to believe they ended months ago?
Context is everything. I made that comment in response to asking why provide a link to a story from the NYP. And asked what difference does it make what the source that poster used as long as the story is accurate.
And yes, for a large part CNN and other main stream media drastically downplay the violence in the protests. Just like Fox does the opposite.
Your comment was waaaaaaaaaay out of context. “Reporting” is much different than “bias” in said reporting. Your statement assumes that those of us living in the liberal bubble would think the rioting ended two months ago. I take issue with that general characterization that you made.
That’s not what I said at all. I’ll explain again. Someone said they wouldn’t click on an article because of the source. I asked what does the source matter if it is accurate. And gave the example the left emphasizes the peaceful side of the protests and the right focuses on the violent side. And said if you watch only CNN You’d think the violence ended months ago, compared to if you watched fox, you’d think the country is in complete anarchy. I did say If you want accurate stories you have to leave the left bubble and get multiple sources. I wasn’t talking to anyone specifically, it was a general “you.” Never accused anyone of only listening to a single source.
So you don’t think CNN is biased. I do. As well as all the right/conservative ones too.
Still, I only asked what difference the source makes if it’s accurate. I’m guessing since you provided other sources the answer is none?
No, you claimed that if we (General we) didn’t step out of our liberal news bubble, we’d think the riots ended months ago. I’m pointing out that my liberal bubble has reported on the ongoing riots extensively. Here’s a couple more opinions. Maybe you could share which liberal news sources haven’t covered the riots, leading us to believe they ended months ago?
Context is everything. I made that comment in response to asking why provide a link to a story from the NYP. And asked what difference does it make what the source that poster used as long as the story is accurate.
And yes, for a large part CNN and other main stream media drastically downplay the violence in the protests. Just like Fox does the opposite.
Your comment was waaaaaaaaaay out of context. “Reporting” is much different than “bias” in said reporting. Your statement assumes that those of us living in the liberal bubble would think the rioting ended two months ago. I take issue with that general characterization that you made.
That’s not what I said at all. I’ll explain again. Someone said they wouldn’t click on an article because of the source. I asked what does the source matter if it is accurate. And gave the example the left emphasizes the peaceful side of the protests and the right focuses on the violent side. And said if you watch only CNN You’d think the violence ended months ago, compared to if you watched fox, you’d think the country is in complete anarchy. I did say If you want accurate stories you have to leave the left bubble and get multiple sources. I wasn’t talking to anyone specifically, it was a general “you.” Never accused anyone of only listening to a single source.
Here's what you posted at 2:30 this afternoon:
What does it matter if it’s extreme left or right, as long
as its true? if
you only read left news sources (italics are mine for emphasis) you’d think looting and violent protests ended
2 months ago. If you only viewed right leaning sources you’d think every major
city is complete anarchy. The
truth is in the middle. There is nothing wrong with someone posting an accurate
story from a right leaning source. You won’t hear that story from most media
sources because it put “protestors” attacking and shooting cops and even
hitting another civilian. So if you want to discuss the violence that is going
on you have to leave the left bubble (italics are mine for emphasis) in order to talk about it.
You made it sound as if you don't leave the "left bubble" (see the bolded) you don't have an accurate portrayal of what has been happening with the riots. I posted the most common "left bubble" news sites to illuistrate that they indeed have reported on the riots, and that if you're in the "left bubble" you wouldn't think they ended two months ago. you didn't say anything about CNN in the above post and to which I'm responding. Again, your "context" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. As I'm part of the "you" you referenced in a "general you" as it relates to a "left bubble," I disagree with your portrayal.
What is inaccurate about the "left bubble" news stories I posted screen shots of? They are findable, all from today and you can read them to "see" if by doing so, someone might think the riots ended two months ago or that they downplayed the "violence."
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
So you don’t think CNN is biased. I do. As well as all the right/conservative ones too.
Still, I only asked what difference the source makes if it’s accurate. I’m guessing since you provided other sources the answer is none?
No, you claimed that if we (General we) didn’t step out of our liberal news bubble, we’d think the riots ended months ago. I’m pointing out that my liberal bubble has reported on the ongoing riots extensively. Here’s a couple more opinions. Maybe you could share which liberal news sources haven’t covered the riots, leading us to believe they ended months ago?
Context is everything. I made that comment in response to asking why provide a link to a story from the NYP. And asked what difference does it make what the source that poster used as long as the story is accurate.
And yes, for a large part CNN and other main stream media drastically downplay the violence in the protests. Just like Fox does the opposite.
Your comment was waaaaaaaaaay out of context. “Reporting” is much different than “bias” in said reporting. Your statement assumes that those of us living in the liberal bubble would think the rioting ended two months ago. I take issue with that general characterization that you made.
That’s not what I said at all. I’ll explain again. Someone said they wouldn’t click on an article because of the source. I asked what does the source matter if it is accurate. And gave the example the left emphasizes the peaceful side of the protests and the right focuses on the violent side. And said if you watch only CNN You’d think the violence ended months ago, compared to if you watched fox, you’d think the country is in complete anarchy. I did say If you want accurate stories you have to leave the left bubble and get multiple sources. I wasn’t talking to anyone specifically, it was a general “you.” Never accused anyone of only listening to a single source.
Here's what you posted at 2:30 this afternoon:
What does it matter if it’s extreme left or right, as long
as its true? if
you only read left news sources (italics are mine for emphasis) you’d think looting and violent protests ended
2 months ago. If you only viewed right leaning sources you’d think every major
city is complete anarchy.
The
truth is in the middle. There is nothing wrong with someone posting an accurate
story from a right leaning source. You won’t hear that story from most media
sources because it put “protestors” attacking and shooting cops and even
hitting another civilian. So if you want to discuss the violence that is going
on you have to leave the left bubble (italics are mine for emphasis) in order to talk about it.
You made it sound as if you don't leave the "left bubble" (see the bolded) you don't have an accurate portrayal of what has been happening with the riots. I posted the most common "left bubble" news sites to illuistrate that they indeed have reported on the riots, and that if you're in the "left bubble" you wouldn't think they ended two months ago. you didn't say anything about CNN in the above post and to which I'm responding. Again, your "context" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. As I'm part of the "you" you referenced in a "general you" as it relates to a "left bubble," I disagree with your portrayal.
What is inaccurate about the "left bubble" news stories I posted screen shots of? They are findable, all from today and you can read them to "see" if by doing so, someone might think the riots ended two months ago or that they downplayed the "violence."
You think the mainstream media isn’t biased and reports accurately on the protests and violence. I don’t. I think we’ve beat this to death. We disagree on one more thing.
So you don’t think CNN is biased. I do. As well as all the right/conservative ones too.
Still, I only asked what difference the source makes if it’s accurate. I’m guessing since you provided other sources the answer is none?
No, you claimed that if we (General we) didn’t step out of our liberal news bubble, we’d think the riots ended months ago. I’m pointing out that my liberal bubble has reported on the ongoing riots extensively. Here’s a couple more opinions. Maybe you could share which liberal news sources haven’t covered the riots, leading us to believe they ended months ago?
Context is everything. I made that comment in response to asking why provide a link to a story from the NYP. And asked what difference does it make what the source that poster used as long as the story is accurate.
And yes, for a large part CNN and other main stream media drastically downplay the violence in the protests. Just like Fox does the opposite.
Your comment was waaaaaaaaaay out of context. “Reporting” is much different than “bias” in said reporting. Your statement assumes that those of us living in the liberal bubble would think the rioting ended two months ago. I take issue with that general characterization that you made.
That’s not what I said at all. I’ll explain again. Someone said they wouldn’t click on an article because of the source. I asked what does the source matter if it is accurate. And gave the example the left emphasizes the peaceful side of the protests and the right focuses on the violent side. And said if you watch only CNN You’d think the violence ended months ago, compared to if you watched fox, you’d think the country is in complete anarchy. I did say If you want accurate stories you have to leave the left bubble and get multiple sources. I wasn’t talking to anyone specifically, it was a general “you.” Never accused anyone of only listening to a single source.
Here's what you posted at 2:30 this afternoon:
What does it matter if it’s extreme left or right, as long
as its true? if
you only read left news sources (italics are mine for emphasis) you’d think looting and violent protests ended
2 months ago. If you only viewed right leaning sources you’d think every major
city is complete anarchy.
The
truth is in the middle. There is nothing wrong with someone posting an accurate
story from a right leaning source. You won’t hear that story from most media
sources because it put “protestors” attacking and shooting cops and even
hitting another civilian. So if you want to discuss the violence that is going
on you have to leave the left bubble (italics are mine for emphasis) in order to talk about it.
You made it sound as if you don't leave the "left bubble" (see the bolded) you don't have an accurate portrayal of what has been happening with the riots. I posted the most common "left bubble" news sites to illuistrate that they indeed have reported on the riots, and that if you're in the "left bubble" you wouldn't think they ended two months ago. you didn't say anything about CNN in the above post and to which I'm responding. Again, your "context" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. As I'm part of the "you" you referenced in a "general you" as it relates to a "left bubble," I disagree with your portrayal.
What is inaccurate about the "left bubble" news stories I posted screen shots of? They are findable, all from today and you can read them to "see" if by doing so, someone might think the riots ended two months ago or that they downplayed the "violence."
You think the mainstream media isn’t biased and reports accurately on the protests and violence. I don’t. I think we’ve beat this to death. We disagree on one more thing.
I never said a word about bias, you brought it up. I simply pointed out that the “left bubble” wouldn’t have you believe the riots ended two months ago as you posited. Why CNN just reported on riots in 5 or 6 cities across the US tonight, including Ferguson and Chicago over the weekend. Both sides are not the same.
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
Spot on. Zero discussion about my original post. Almost two pages of attacking news sources.
I thought the protesters were all peaceful and the looters were all bad actors. Those lines might be a bit more blurred I guess. What’s going on in Chicago is a disgrace. And this is from NBC Chicago; not some right-wing, politically spun bullshit news source.
So you don’t think CNN is biased. I do. As well as all the right/conservative ones too.
Still, I only asked what difference the source makes if it’s accurate. I’m guessing since you provided other sources the answer is none?
No, you claimed that if we (General we) didn’t step out of our liberal news bubble, we’d think the riots ended months ago. I’m pointing out that my liberal bubble has reported on the ongoing riots extensively. Here’s a couple more opinions. Maybe you could share which liberal news sources haven’t covered the riots, leading us to believe they ended months ago?
Context is everything. I made that comment in response to asking why provide a link to a story from the NYP. And asked what difference does it make what the source that poster used as long as the story is accurate.
And yes, for a large part CNN and other main stream media drastically downplay the violence in the protests. Just like Fox does the opposite.
Your comment was waaaaaaaaaay out of context. “Reporting” is much different than “bias” in said reporting. Your statement assumes that those of us living in the liberal bubble would think the rioting ended two months ago. I take issue with that general characterization that you made.
That’s not what I said at all. I’ll explain again. Someone said they wouldn’t click on an article because of the source. I asked what does the source matter if it is accurate. And gave the example the left emphasizes the peaceful side of the protests and the right focuses on the violent side. And said if you watch only CNN You’d think the violence ended months ago, compared to if you watched fox, you’d think the country is in complete anarchy. I did say If you want accurate stories you have to leave the left bubble and get multiple sources. I wasn’t talking to anyone specifically, it was a general “you.” Never accused anyone of only listening to a single source.
Here's what you posted at 2:30 this afternoon:
What does it matter if it’s extreme left or right, as long
as its true? if
you only read left news sources (italics are mine for emphasis) you’d think looting and violent protests ended
2 months ago. If you only viewed right leaning sources you’d think every major
city is complete anarchy.
The
truth is in the middle. There is nothing wrong with someone posting an accurate
story from a right leaning source. You won’t hear that story from most media
sources because it put “protestors” attacking and shooting cops and even
hitting another civilian. So if you want to discuss the violence that is going
on you have to leave the left bubble (italics are mine for emphasis) in order to talk about it.
You made it sound as if you don't leave the "left bubble" (see the bolded) you don't have an accurate portrayal of what has been happening with the riots. I posted the most common "left bubble" news sites to illuistrate that they indeed have reported on the riots, and that if you're in the "left bubble" you wouldn't think they ended two months ago. you didn't say anything about CNN in the above post and to which I'm responding. Again, your "context" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. As I'm part of the "you" you referenced in a "general you" as it relates to a "left bubble," I disagree with your portrayal.
What is inaccurate about the "left bubble" news stories I posted screen shots of? They are findable, all from today and you can read them to "see" if by doing so, someone might think the riots ended two months ago or that they downplayed the "violence."
You think the mainstream media isn’t biased and reports accurately on the protests and violence. I don’t. I think we’ve beat this to death. We disagree on one more thing.
You are conflating two different issues, bias and accuracy. The mainstream left leaning sources you mentioned are generally recognized to have accurate reporting despite bias, while the New York Post is viewed as being both biased and factually mixed. That means that there's no particular reason to assume the reporting is true or accurate, and if that's the case, no real reason to read it when there are better sources. I believe that was dignin's point as well.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I thought the protesters were all peaceful and the looters were all bad actors. Those lines might be a bit more blurred I guess. What’s going on in Chicago is a disgrace. And this is from NBC Chicago; not some right-wing, politically spun bullshit news source.
Wow, so Chicago BLM leaders openly endorse the looting...You said it, disgraceful. Wonder how Chiraq business owners and voters feel about it. Jesse Jackson is not a fan:
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
The headline makes it a political opinion piece imo.
Looting is ugly and every reasonable take I’ve seen has spoke out against it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a viable form of protest. Kneeling on the sideline and blocking streets apparently has a pretty low ceiling for success.
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
You are free to move on if you wish.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
You are free to move on if you wish.
Scary world when you can only talk about something if an approved media outlet mentions it.
A - "Fox12 just said a tornado is coming!"
B - "Has NBC said anything about a tornado yet?"
A - "But look out the window, you can see the funnel cloud!"
B - "Why are you referencing a biased media outlet?"
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
And you could start a Cities Under Siege Thread or a Riot Acts thread. This is the Police Abuse thread so I’m not sure how the Chicago looting fits in unless you consider 13 officers hurt arresting 100 suspected rioters/looters “abuse?”
What’s so telling? That posters here don’t think Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. will go the way of Seattle? I heard it had fallen.
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
And you could start a Cities Under Siege Thread or a Riot Acts thread. This is the Police Abuse thread so I’m not sure how the Chicago looting fits in unless you consider 13 officers hurt arresting 100 suspected rioters/looters “abuse?”
What’s so telling? That posters here don’t think Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. will go the way of Seattle? I heard it had fallen.
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
And you could start a Cities Under Siege Thread or a Riot Acts thread. This is the Police Abuse thread so I’m not sure how the Chicago looting fits in unless you consider 13 officers hurt arresting 100 suspected rioters/looters “abuse?”
What’s so telling? That posters here don’t think Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. will go the way of Seattle? I heard it had fallen.
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
You are free to move on if you wish.
Scary world when you can only talk about something if an approved media outlet mentions it.
A - "Fox12 just said a tornado is coming!"
B - "Has NBC said anything about a tornado yet?"
A - "But look out the window, you can see the funnel cloud!"
B - "Why are you referencing a biased media outlet?"
A - "Get in the basement!"
B - "Why are my windows shaking?"
Who said approved? I said accurate. You are free to read less than accurate sources, and even talk about them if you wish.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The headline makes it a political opinion piece imo.
Looting is ugly and every reasonable take I’ve seen has spoke out against it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a viable form of protest. Kneeling on the sideline and blocking streets apparently has a pretty low ceiling for success.
Looting is a viable form of protest? Really? Breaking windows and stealing a new pair of Gucci shoes is getting the BLM message across?
Why don’t you talk about the event that you know is true and happened instead of attacking the news source that was linked? Or do you prefer to ignore things that don’t fit your viewpoint and thus distract with attacks on the news source? It is working if that is your goal.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Irrelevant to the topic. You can start a news outlet topic, if there’s not one already. It was a news piece, not a political opinion piece. What’s going on in Chicago is Embarrassing and disgraceful no matter which news outlet you choose to read it from. Why we’re still discussing this instead of what’s going on is really telling.
And you could start a Cities Under Siege Thread or a Riot Acts thread. This is the Police Abuse thread so I’m not sure how the Chicago looting fits in unless you consider 13 officers hurt arresting 100 suspected rioters/looters “abuse?”
What’s so telling? That posters here don’t think Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. will go the way of Seattle? I heard it had fallen.
That's actually a good idea. I said the same thing a few weeks back. There's so much rioting, looting, and violence, yet we've all been posting about it threads like this, BLM, Seattle has fallen, etc. I'll start the thread.
All of these threads are intertwined. BLM, police abuse, Seattle fallen, etc. Could post the same thing in all three and have it be relevant to the topic.
When all Murdoch owned media had that story as their lead, well, colour me skeptical. Was it really as important as other things that were going on that day? Could they trying to distract people from more disgusting abuses of democracy?
And if were going to get technical about what can and cant get posted in this thread, I don't see how the original link is relevant to police abuse. Were the cops beating on protesters? I don't know, because I didn't look at the link, for reasons stated before.
The headline makes it a political opinion piece imo.
Looting is ugly and every reasonable take I’ve seen has spoke out against it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a viable form of protest. Kneeling on the sideline and blocking streets apparently has a pretty low ceiling for success.
Looting is a viable form of protest? Really? Breaking windows and stealing a new pair of Gucci shoes is getting the BLM message across?
Not saying everyone doing it is righteous but if people view those businesses as symbols of a system that has held them down and they’re willing to risk the consequences, then by all means....when have any major advances in social justice happened without this sort of thing?
My liberal bubble keeping me thinking that the riots ended two months ago. Also, showing how they're down playing the violence.
From the NYT email The Morning
View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story
THREE MORE BIG STORIES
2. Unrest in Chicago
Bridges were raised in Chicago to prevent people from going to the scene of the unrest.Ashlee Rezin Garcia/Chicago Sun-Times, via Associated Press
More than 100 people were arrested in Chicago on charges of disorderly conduct, looting and battery against the police yesterday, after crowds smashed through store windows and clashed with the police along the Magnificent Mile shopping district.
The cause of the unrest was still murky by Monday evening, though it seemed to have been set off after police officers shot a 20-year-old man who they said had fired at them first.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot expressed outrage over the unrest, and ordered limited access to downtown starting Monday evening. But she made it clear that she did not want federal troops sent to the city and drew a distinction between the turmoil and the “righteous uprising” of demonstrations that followed the killing of George Floyd.
In Seattle: The city’s police chief, Carmen Best, said last night that she would resign, hours after the City Council approved cuts to the police budget.
A deadly summer: Months spent in lockdown and the pandemic’s effects on the economy appear to have contributed to an abnormally large increase in homicides across 20 major U.S. cities.
When all Murdoch owned media had that story as their lead, well, colour me skeptical. Was it really as important as other things that were going on that day? Could they trying to distract people from more disgusting abuses of democracy?
And if were going to get technical about what can and cant get posted in this thread, I don't see how the original link is relevant to police abuse. Were the cops beating on protesters? I don't know, because I didn't look at the link, for reasons stated before.
What sparked the latest round of "protests" in Chicago was a cop shooting a criminal that shot at the police first. So, yes, it is very relevant to a police abuse thread.
The headline makes it a political opinion piece imo.
Looting is ugly and every reasonable take I’ve seen has spoke out against it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a viable form of protest. Kneeling on the sideline and blocking streets apparently has a pretty low ceiling for success.
Looting is a viable form of protest? Really? Breaking windows and stealing a new pair of Gucci shoes is getting the BLM message across?
Not saying everyone doing it is righteous but if people view those businesses as symbols of a system that has held them down and they’re willing to risk the consequences, then by all means....when have any major advances in social justice happened without this sort of thing?
I don't know, man. You're entitled to your opinion, just as I am to mine. We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.
The headline makes it a political opinion piece imo.
Looting is ugly and every reasonable take I’ve seen has spoke out against it. Doesn’t mean it’s not a viable form of protest. Kneeling on the sideline and blocking streets apparently has a pretty low ceiling for success.
Looting is a viable form of protest? Really? Breaking windows and stealing a new pair of Gucci shoes is getting the BLM message across?
Not saying everyone doing it is righteous but if people view those businesses as symbols of a system that has held them down and they’re willing to risk the consequences, then by all means....when have any major advances in social justice happened without this sort of thing?
So is there a line that should not be crossed? We’ve already seen attempts to burn down a building with people inside, elderly abuse, etc. By “risk the consequence” such as having the military brought in to control the riots? The “social justice” may not be what they hoped for, especially once businesses owners start taking matters into their own hands. But as long as the business owners are willing to risk the consequences of lethal force against looters, then “by all means”?
Comments
I did say If you want accurate stories you have to leave the left bubble and get multiple sources. I wasn’t talking to anyone specifically, it was a general “you.”
Never accused anyone of only listening to a single source.
What does it matter if it’s extreme left or right, as long as its true?
You made it sound as if you don't leave the "left bubble" (see the bolded) you don't have an accurate portrayal of what has been happening with the riots. I posted the most common "left bubble" news sites to illuistrate that they indeed have reported on the riots, and that if you're in the "left bubble" you wouldn't think they ended two months ago. you didn't say anything about CNN in the above post and to which I'm responding. Again, your "context" is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base. As I'm part of the "you" you referenced in a "general you" as it relates to a "left bubble," I disagree with your portrayal.if you only read left news sources (italics are mine for emphasis) you’d think looting and violent protests ended 2 months ago. If you only viewed right leaning sources you’d think every major city is complete anarchy.
The truth is in the middle. There is nothing wrong with someone posting an accurate story from a right leaning source. You won’t hear that story from most media sources because it put “protestors” attacking and shooting cops and even hitting another civilian. So if you want to discuss the violence that is going on you have to leave the left bubble (italics are mine for emphasis) in order to talk about it.
What is inaccurate about the "left bubble" news stories I posted screen shots of? They are findable, all from today and you can read them to "see" if by doing so, someone might think the riots ended two months ago or that they downplayed the "violence."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/11/video-florida-boy-arrested/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/black-lives-matter-holds-rally-supporting-individuals-arrested-in-chicago-looting-monday/2320365/%3famp
You are conflating two different issues, bias and accuracy. The mainstream left leaning sources you mentioned are generally recognized to have accurate reporting despite bias, while the New York Post is viewed as being both biased and factually mixed. That means that there's no particular reason to assume the reporting is true or accurate, and if that's the case, no real reason to read it when there are better sources. I believe that was dignin's point as well.
No reason why there can't be discussion about news sources, when that's an essential element of how the narrative about police is shaped and in fact how police have been able to get away with what they've been getting away with for decades.
Which headline?
Scary world when you can only talk about something if an approved media outlet mentions it.
A - "Fox12 just said a tornado is coming!"
B - "Has NBC said anything about a tornado yet?"
A - "But look out the window, you can see the funnel cloud!"
B - "Why are you referencing a biased media outlet?"
A - "Get in the basement!"
B - "Why are my windows shaking?"
What’s so telling? That posters here don’t think Chicago, NYC, LA, etc. will go the way of Seattle? I heard it had fallen.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It is all part of the same conversation.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
And if were going to get technical about what can and cant get posted in this thread, I don't see how the original link is relevant to police abuse. Were the cops beating on protesters? I don't know, because I didn't look at the link, for reasons stated before.
From the NYT email The Morning
View in browser|nytimes.com
Continue reading the main story
More than 100 people were arrested in Chicago on charges of disorderly conduct, looting and battery against the police yesterday, after crowds smashed through store windows and clashed with the police along the Magnificent Mile shopping district.
The cause of the unrest was still murky by Monday evening, though it seemed to have been set off after police officers shot a 20-year-old man who they said had fired at them first.
In Seattle: The city’s police chief, Carmen Best, said last night that she would resign, hours after the City Council approved cuts to the police budget.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©