Thanks for the response.
Why post that descriptive sentence in the article if not to frame the people who disagree with the verdict and the jury?
What would be the point of placing that information up front, if not to influence people with the content?
It was unnecessary if not to frame the dissenters in some manner. You can’t possibly think those comments were flattering to the public who disagreed.
I know you’re convinced I’m being paranoid, but by dismissing any insult there, you’re saying that was placed in the article for no reason whatsoever.
Wordsmiths don’t do that.
Because it’s actually useful stuff to keep in mind. There’s a lot of folks saying the jury must be idiots to acquit, but those folks saying that have a whole different pile of information to work with. It frames the situation, it points out the probable source of the large difference in opinion of the TV audience and the jury. It’s actually a valid and informative sentence. I know we’re not used to the media doing that, but it happens sometimes.