One story, three reports, your opinions?
- Thread starter markjs
- Start date
markjs
Banned
Well now, my actual opinion....
CNN, and MSNBC, were largely using the AP version of the story. They covered the bases, brought to light most of the facts, and did a fair job IMHO. What they did wrong IMHO, is that they weren't very thorough in their reporting, and it seems to me they were overly concerned with not looking biased, and therefore missed a lot of the story. While they gave us the basic gist of what happened, they avoided some of the pertinent facts, and only did a fair job at best.
Fox News on the other hand did, by far the best job covering the story from most angles. They lived up to their "fair and balanced" slogan in this case. Fox also offered expert legal opinions both pro and con, another place where they were more thorough in their coverage. While I often see them showing conservative leanings in some stories, the cetainly didn't do that here. They were very thorogh including some very important points the others missed, such as:
This is very key in the case against the police. Neither other source mentioned this. Fox, also gives a lot more information about where Kerry stands on the issue and how he felt about it.
Fox News unfortunately omits a key point as well:
So in the end I think what I see in the Fox report is the most thorough account, but it shows a bias that I hadn't expected. I would have expected a story from Fox that made the authorities look good and the student look bad, and I guess that was an unfair and biased assumption on my part. In this story, the thing I see is CNN and MSNBC, trying to get the story out with a minimal version, and trying to look "unbiased" at the expense of telling the whole story.
What I see out of Fox, I should have expected. They did give the better account of the story, but they left out that key point about this kid having a history of stunts like this. I think the bias Fox showed was that they "sensationalized" the whole thing. They took the story and made it more "entertaining". They are after all a big company and a lot of what they do is entertainment, but whatever their reasoning, the covered the story better than the other two, and they didn't invent anything, just used the facts to color it differently.
Unfortunaly one has to read at least two versions to really get a good idea of all the facts. That's a shame, and in this case, slightly moreso on CNN and MSNBC, IMHO. I think it entirely possible that the Fox reporter either did not know this kid had a history of pranks like this, but I suspect, it equally possible that, that fact was ommitted for the sake of sensationalism, and to make it look more like police brutality.
About the situation in general, the kid was asking for trouble and he knew it, and I think it is entirely possible, if not likely that he got exactly what he wanted out of the situation. I hope he gets convicted of all the charges that they stick him with, short of inciting a riot, because clearly that's over the top.
On the other hand, the police tasering the kid is going too far as well IMHO. They had every right to escort him out, they had every right to arrest him in the end, because he did in fact resist, but at no point in the video, do I see him becoming a real danger to police or those around him. At no point do I see him looking like he is about to take down the crowd of officers around him. I think the police just thought; 'hell here's a good excuse to taser this kid, won't this be fun?' They had the situation under control for the most part, but he pissed them off, and they punished him for it.
I do not believe he deserves to profit because of yet another frivilous lawsuit, expecially being as he engineered the scene, knew the risks, and bit off a little more than he wanted to chew, and he wasn't hurt in any permanent way. I suppose though that that will be decided in court, ridiculous as it is.
I do believe the police used excessive force, and that the officers responsible should be held accountable, and that may mean a payoff for this kid in a civil suit, which is pretty stupid, but all the same, they shouldn't just get away with it.
CNN, and MSNBC, were largely using the AP version of the story. They covered the bases, brought to light most of the facts, and did a fair job IMHO. What they did wrong IMHO, is that they weren't very thorough in their reporting, and it seems to me they were overly concerned with not looking biased, and therefore missed a lot of the story. While they gave us the basic gist of what happened, they avoided some of the pertinent facts, and only did a fair job at best.
Fox News on the other hand did, by far the best job covering the story from most angles. They lived up to their "fair and balanced" slogan in this case. Fox also offered expert legal opinions both pro and con, another place where they were more thorough in their coverage. While I often see them showing conservative leanings in some stories, the cetainly didn't do that here. They were very thorogh including some very important points the others missed, such as:
Fox News said:
This is very key in the case against the police. Neither other source mentioned this. Fox, also gives a lot more information about where Kerry stands on the issue and how he felt about it.
Fox News unfortunately omits a key point as well:
AP (CNN said:
So in the end I think what I see in the Fox report is the most thorough account, but it shows a bias that I hadn't expected. I would have expected a story from Fox that made the authorities look good and the student look bad, and I guess that was an unfair and biased assumption on my part. In this story, the thing I see is CNN and MSNBC, trying to get the story out with a minimal version, and trying to look "unbiased" at the expense of telling the whole story.
What I see out of Fox, I should have expected. They did give the better account of the story, but they left out that key point about this kid having a history of stunts like this. I think the bias Fox showed was that they "sensationalized" the whole thing. They took the story and made it more "entertaining". They are after all a big company and a lot of what they do is entertainment, but whatever their reasoning, the covered the story better than the other two, and they didn't invent anything, just used the facts to color it differently.
Unfortunaly one has to read at least two versions to really get a good idea of all the facts. That's a shame, and in this case, slightly moreso on CNN and MSNBC, IMHO. I think it entirely possible that the Fox reporter either did not know this kid had a history of pranks like this, but I suspect, it equally possible that, that fact was ommitted for the sake of sensationalism, and to make it look more like police brutality.
About the situation in general, the kid was asking for trouble and he knew it, and I think it is entirely possible, if not likely that he got exactly what he wanted out of the situation. I hope he gets convicted of all the charges that they stick him with, short of inciting a riot, because clearly that's over the top.
On the other hand, the police tasering the kid is going too far as well IMHO. They had every right to escort him out, they had every right to arrest him in the end, because he did in fact resist, but at no point in the video, do I see him becoming a real danger to police or those around him. At no point do I see him looking like he is about to take down the crowd of officers around him. I think the police just thought; 'hell here's a good excuse to taser this kid, won't this be fun?' They had the situation under control for the most part, but he pissed them off, and they punished him for it.
I do not believe he deserves to profit because of yet another frivilous lawsuit, expecially being as he engineered the scene, knew the risks, and bit off a little more than he wanted to chew, and he wasn't hurt in any permanent way. I suppose though that that will be decided in court, ridiculous as it is.
I do believe the police used excessive force, and that the officers responsible should be held accountable, and that may mean a payoff for this kid in a civil suit, which is pretty stupid, but all the same, they shouldn't just get away with it.
