A few things so I don't have to keep quoting posts.

 

We're expressing opinions that have no way of being proven so if you want to claim victory and say I've been proven wrong then have at it if it helps. I'm confident in my opinion.

 

You still haven't told me what my agenda with the media is. I'll wait.

 

I'm done with you dude.

That debate is the crux of this topic. When can an officer fire? I'm not really sure there is another debate.

 

You were proven wrong on media bias and that the media thrives on stirring the pot an inciting more violence. We don't agree, that's fine. HB proved you wrong. End of discussion.

You were proven wrong on media bias and that the media thrives on stirring the pot an inciting more violence. We don't agree, that's fine. HB proved you wrong. End of discussion.

 

Are you sure this is the end of discussion? You've said that a lot of times in this thread. I can go longer if you come back.

Cool

 

This was aired on "CNN Newsroom". A straight news program.

 

Just in case anyone missed this.

Stop with the personal stuff.

Just in case anyone missed this.

 

 

 

So let's try to have a debate on this particular subject fully realizing that a)we probably won't change each other's mind and b)there's zero chance you nor I can PROVE our opinion. Cool?

 

So HB posted a picture which I assume is from the Michael Brown case two years ago. I won't put words in his or your mouth but I will assume this was intended to support your contention that the media looks to cause violence as you originally posted. Doesn't using that picture as your "proof" seem like a big leap to your claim?

 

Now if you said the media takes sides, gets caught up before knowing facts, is left-leaning, etc then we're in full agreement. However, that's not what you claimed. You claimed their priority and goal is to cause violence. Not report on it. Cause it.

 

How can you ever prove such a claim?

Again, most of the people talking about this case saw it online on FB, Twitter, BGP, etc. Media is irrelevant to this story.

 

To the big picture, no way in the hell the media tries to incite violence. None.

 

 

This was aired on "CNN Newsroom". A straight news program.

 

Does this look like social media to you?

I'd love to see the data used to come to that conclusion...

 

This study , which I think most people already realized, shows that most people get their news today via social media. Logic says this case is no different than most.

 

 

Study Finds Most Americans Get News from Social Media

Does this look like social media to you?

 

There's a lot of ways I can answer this but before I do let me ask you what the point is you are trying to make and what it is in response to that I typed?

So let's try to have a debate on this particular subject fully realizing that a)we probably won't change each other's mind and b)there's zero chance you nor I can PROVE our opinion. Cool?

 

So HB posted a picture which I assume is from the Michael Brown case two years ago. I won't put words in his or your mouth but I will assume this was intended to support your contention that the media looks to cause violence as you originally posted. Doesn't using that picture as your "proof" seem like a big leap to your claim?

 

Now if you said the media takes sides, gets caught up before knowing facts, is left-leaning, etc then we're in full agreement. However, that's not what you claimed. You claimed their priority and goal is to cause violence. Not report on it. Cause it.

 

How can you ever prove such a claim?

 

They facilitate lies as facts, causing violence, rioting, attacks on officers, which results in more officer violence and round and round we go.

This study , which I think most people already realized, shows that most people get their news today via social media. Logic says this case is no different than most.

 

 

Study Finds Most Americans Get News from Social Media

 

Last time I checked, literally EVERY new organization has a Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

They facilitate lies as facts, causing violence, rioting, attacks on officers, which results in more officer violence and round and round we go.

 

Let's back up. You said their goal was to incite violence. I need to ask this specific question so we can have a clear understanding of your belief.

 

Do you believe the president/news chief/editor said in 2014 re: Ferguson "let's make sure that the way we present this story leads to violence so that we can then report on it so that people will watch us?"

 

Simple question.

Let's back up. You said their goal was to incite violence. I need to ask this specific question so we can have a clear understanding of your belief.

 

Do you believe the president/news chief/editor said in 2014 "let's make sure that the way we present this story leads to violence so that we can then report on it so that people will watch us?"

 

Simple question.

 

If you don't think they put their spins on it to get reactions you're crazy. Outrage equals ratings. People can read between the lines. You don't have to vocalize intentions for them to be your intentions.

By the way, I'll be heading to beddie bye soon and will be offline most of the day tomorrow so I don't want anyone claiming "crickets" when it takes a while to respond.