A question of perpsective in politics

If a soldier kills an enemy combatant and then checks his pulse.
and the news arrive.
the cameras film the soldier checking the pulse of the slain victim.
is it fair reporting to headline the soldier as trying to save the fallen combatants life?

if not why not?

Is this a political question?

yes very much so.

How so?

Maybe the soldier is really trying to steal the dead guy’s watch.

I can’t wait to see what the angle is here, so I’ll play.

No - it’s totally unfair for the fake news lib mob media to report that that soldier was trying to save his enemy’s life! They saw a single act and made a judgment call without bothering to get the whole story before writing their slanted headline!

the angle is that this happens every day in the news.

what was said 6 weeks ago is forgotten for the soundbite of the day.

so is there an obligation to show the context?

The media plays to the lowest common denominator and the highest levels of ADD. Do they have an obligation to show context? Ethically perhaps, but not legally. Only FOX, AON, and maybe Infowars make any attempt to be honest and unbiased! Do media consumers have an ethical and intellectual obligation to think critically about the media they consume? Absolutely! Should they not rely on media to do the thinking for them? Of course they shouldn’t! Do they let it happen anyway, and parrot on social media what they heard on their favorite infotainment cable news programs ten minutes after hearing it? Oh yes they do!

Are consumers obligated to take an active role in how they receive information, or is it safe to rely on any outlets apart from Fox, AON, and Infowars to do the thinking for them?

1 Like

I would hardly call fox unbiased, much of the opinion is partisan hackery or free advertising.

I just wish all the sound bites are part of a compilation which portrays the parrots as hacks.

FOX usually treats our POTUS very, very nicely, and doesn’t ask him nasty questions about his brilliant administration’s totally appropriate and utterly flawless response to the COVID-19 hoax.

I do agree with you that they allow too many libs on their network, and therefore you have to be careful you aren’t listening to Chi-Com propaganda.

1 Like

An obligation? No there is no obligation of the press to do anything. They are protected by the 1st amendment and for good reason.

It’s up the viewer to have the ability of discernment. The media owes you nothing.

When you get to the point of demanding the media present something in some way that is to your liking is right about the point when you understand why the 1st is so important. You want to have the government start dictating what the press can and can’t say you’ll quickly figure out why that is NOT a good thing the first time your political party you don’t like comes to power.

1 Like

In what way is fox news biased?

There is always, my truth, your truth and the truth.
each of the outlets has a slant the system serves the public.
they all engage in the same punditry as in the guests appear on all networks and spew the same talking points.
the news is entertainment today and fox is an entertainment channel with very little examination of issues.
we think in talking points and Fox is part of that scheme.
Both the chiefs and the 49ers are in the NFL and ultimately they support the league.

Y’know if you would just say what you mean instead of trying to fool us you’d probably get more responses on your threads.

1 Like

I always say what I mean

After giving this some deep thought…I conclude that no matter how it’s reported…orange man baaa, baaa, baaad. :sunglasses:

That inspires a question.

When Obama wanted to talk to N Korea the right thought it was stupid.

When Trump Talks to N Korea the left thinks it is stupid.

why does the left hate and the right love Trump for Obamas policies.

So the enemy is a victim, how so?

I do not really understand the enemy and victim paradox

Seems to be your go to anyhow