BTW, anyone else have a problem with that headline...
It’s biased as bleep...
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Delivery Man Mercilessly Kills Angie Harmon’s Dog, mewzilla wrote: BTW, anyone else have a problem with that headline...
It’s biased as bleep...
Yes. I think I would have responded differently to an objective title and objective reporting, and a dog owner not using their disproportionate social 'megaphone' to try to cancel someone. The playing field is not equal in the celebrity court of public opinion. Harmon posted his profile online and her fans are saying 'get him'; I'm disgusted.
With profoundly biased reporting posing Harmon as 100% responsibility free and the driver a 'mercilous' killer, I automatically move to point out the details ignored or distorted.
If the problem is the driver was not bitten, there seems to be an expectation that a person must wait until a dog rips a vein open before deciding the dog is a threat. The fact that the other dog did not threaten the driver and the driver did not shoot the non-threatening dog doesn't seem 'mercilous' to me.
The MSM reported this as a 'damsel in distress versus villain', and now an actress (Hollywood television royalty) will use her fandom to flatten a 'commoner' (delivery driver). Maybe delivery drivers should refuse to deliver to her house so they do not run the risk of having their life ruined if she gets another dog that size and doesn't secure him either.