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.
In the case of the Brown shooting I saw the video and I saw the still of him lying dead in the street - and the timeline.
My opinion was not cast in concrete, but it was going to need some seriously occams razor breaking evidence to change. And, of course, when you bass your opinion on raw facts that form a reasonable picture, more often than not you turn out getting it pretty correct.
Take the Zimmerman case. One shot fired. One. And the dead guy was into street fighting. So the question is, when a fist fight breaks out between a man carrying a concealed weapon and another guy who is unarmed, but younger and bigger than the other guy, who probably started it?
Guys with concealed weapons only start fist fights in movies.
I thought I made a nice catchy headline for this one, though. Surprised not much comment on it so far. :/
You just have to know which buttons to push. "Robert E. Lee In Gay USMC Orgy with Charles Darwin" ought to do the trick.
I think I’ve seen that movie.
Um, for research purposes, of course.
I blame the media 60%. I blame gullible people 40%.
We don’t have to listen or get fired up about anything until more facts come in. No matter what politician or talking head is telling us what to think.
“Fox News just reported a breaking story that US fighters are tracking a “unresponsive aircraft” over the Atlantic.”
Santa
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.