Posted on 09/05/2014 9:42:17 AM PDT by kevkrom
It’s a predictable as the rising of the sun in the east each morning. Whenever a “BREAKING NEWS” alert happens, one can reasonably predict the following three things will happen:
1) Since everything these days is political, one or more activist groups will latch onto the story immediately and use it as illustrative of issues they want to talk about. Once politicized…
2) There is immediate public pressure to “pick a side”. This almost always falls down ideological lines, regardless of the actual facts in the case, and opinions are often based on reflexive opposition to . And speaking of the facts…
3) Initial reports are almost always wrong in many, if not most of, the vital details, as borne out by follow-up stories.
This produces additional derivative patterns:
1) Since the issue has been politicized, discussion about the actual incident is often secondary at best. People get sucked into having a “conversation” about the “underlying issues”, which have been framed by the activists, putting any opposition on their heels.
2) When the actual facts are discovered or corrected, people embrace only those facts that support their views and ignore (or worse, dismiss a fake) any facts contrary to their staked-out position. This is more or less normal human behavior, but it is exaggerated in these types of instances.
The recent unrest in Ferguson, the Trayvon Martin shooting, the school shootings in Connecticut; all of these exhibit the same patterns - initial reports followed by “battle lines” being drawn based on those reports, which fail to really budge when full information is known. Taking the Martin case - why are we still talking about “stand your ground” laws when they had nothing to do with the incident? Because that’s the initial framing by the activist parties.
Having identified the problem, though, no easy solution presents itself. Certainly, refusing to get drawn into immediately choosing sides helps at the personal level to stay objective and not be ruled by emotion. But that can only work if the activists who drive the controversies are soundly and repeatedly discredited when the real facts come out. A look at the modern political and media landscape does not provide much hope in that regard, however.
“Journalism” is a joke nowadays. Pity the young people don’t see this.
Then we might as well shut down Freerepublic.
But you don’t understand. That Gentle Giant was just a baby!
And he was murdered in cold blood by a white cop.
Riot we much!
Then we might as well shut down Freerepublic.
That'll never happen. As long as good FReepers like me read some excerpt from some 3rd rate news source (or even better - a BLOG!) and immediately believe it to be true and post knee-jerk reactions - then there will always be a Free Republic.
Blogs are passé. I get all my stuff from Twitter these days.
Fox News just reported a breaking story that US fighters are tracking a “unresponsive aircraft” over the Atlantic. That is all.
What I like to do is respond furiously to the headline without reading the story at all. It’s an old FR tradition. BTT
Why isn’t this in Breaking News?
Why isn’t this in Breaking News?
I have another theory.
In the Zimmerman case, when I first heard about it, I thought it was a white “cop wannabee” shooting an innocent blick child. But as facts came out, I changed my position.
Meanwhile, with the Brown shooting, I pretty much figured Brown brought it on himself.
In both cases, It was based on the facts as initially received. In the case of zimmerman, the first reports were that he was a white neigborhood watch guy that was a bit overzealous and the victim was a black child coming home from seven eleven. With that info, Z looked guilty.
But in the brown case, I heard about the shooting and the video at the convenience store simultaneously. I also shortly after that learned that the cop had been injured. I put two and two together and saw a “typically human” cop confronted by a thug and figured odds were it was a good shooting.
Regarding the Zimmerman case, as facts came out it became clear it was not at all what it had been reported. I completely turned my perception around and was even surprised they were still going to embarrass themselves in a trial. And the trial went exactly as I expected it to. It may be because I’d been reading a LOT on Conservative Treehouse by then.
But on one of my favorite libral sites, many of the liberals started defending zimmerman. I then saw a pattern and it proved correct. In every situation where I asked the question about it, it was clear that the folks who thought zimmerman murdered an innocent black child in cold blood were not only liberals. They were also black.
Fact is, in the middle to upper middle class culture, facts matter. In the poorer US cultures, regardless of race, emotion more rules the day. It’s one reason they are poor. And it’s a big mistake to let them vote.
Read the excerpt? Heresy. A true Freeper like myself only needs to read the headline.
“Journalism” is a joke nowadays. Pity the young people don’t see this.
But the frog is being slowly boiled alive.
Because virtually everything important in this article is wrong?
I wait until a reply with 15 links to the real story is posted
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.