ltorlo64
07-14-2018, 09:21 PM
This is another example of a biased news story. The story is so biased, in fact, as to almost call the veracity of the whole article into question. First, the 4th paragraph begins with the words “two armed citizens became self-appointed protectors”. This ignores the civic duty that all citizens have to protect each other and tries to evoke visions of vigilantism. This is verified when about 6 paragraphs later the authors use an earlier quote by a OKCPD spokesman that says “We don’t want people to be vigilantes”. According to the dictionary a vigilante is “a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.” A citizen protecting another citizen is not trying to undertake law enforcement any more than a citizen who is trained in CPR is trying to undertake medical practice when providing first aid to a person with a heart attack. They are being a conscientious citizen.
Next there is the way the shooting is described. The authors barely mention the fact that there was no specific target, that the shooter was just shooting anyone who happened to be there. They do make a big deal over no one being killed except for the criminal who was shooting people randomly. They pretty much ignore the fact that if the two men did not intervene there would assuredly been more innocent victims. In fact, the way the authors describe the criminal shooter you get the impression that he was an innocent victim.
Last I will call attention to the headline “In all reality, there were three shooters.” This title attempts to lump the two people who risked their lives to stop a massacre in with the one intending to perpetrate a massacre. There were three people who fired their weapons, one shooter and two protectors. When referring to the “shooter” most people will associate that term with the person perpetrating the crime. The authors try to equate two very different people, and motives, to the individuals involved.
It is sad and telling that this story was written and published by what used to be one of the most trusted news organizations. Just another reason why people distrust the news so much.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters’-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-it’s-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ar-AAA1hQP?ocid=spartanntp
Next there is the way the shooting is described. The authors barely mention the fact that there was no specific target, that the shooter was just shooting anyone who happened to be there. They do make a big deal over no one being killed except for the criminal who was shooting people randomly. They pretty much ignore the fact that if the two men did not intervene there would assuredly been more innocent victims. In fact, the way the authors describe the criminal shooter you get the impression that he was an innocent victim.
Last I will call attention to the headline “In all reality, there were three shooters.” This title attempts to lump the two people who risked their lives to stop a massacre in with the one intending to perpetrate a massacre. There were three people who fired their weapons, one shooter and two protectors. When referring to the “shooter” most people will associate that term with the person perpetrating the crime. The authors try to equate two very different people, and motives, to the individuals involved.
It is sad and telling that this story was written and published by what used to be one of the most trusted news organizations. Just another reason why people distrust the news so much.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters’-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-it’s-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ar-AAA1hQP?ocid=spartanntp