Many years ago when I was a young naive college student, unaware that university was supposed to provide a "safe" place where I would be free from even the merest hint of offense, I blindly accepted it when my communications professors told me that the job of the media was to report the facts of any given situation while removing as much bias of the reporter as possible.
Now we live in the age of the media narrative, in a rush to produce something original so many media outlets will run with any out of context tidbit and craft a story that fits their view of what should be without reference to context or truth.
We see this with the CO shootings. There has been a rush to spin one out of context, essentially unverified comment (something about baby parts) into a narrative that blames pro life supporters for expressing disgust about the practices of PP.
This raises questions.
Isn't it possible that the fact that PP was selling human body parts, intentionally harvested to maximize their value would disgust any human being with an ounce of compassion?
Given his external similarities to left wing eco-terrorist the unabomber, wouldn't it be just as reasonable to assume that he was a left wing nut?
Why isn't the same standard of responsibility applied to the guy who shot up the Family Research Council based on the SPLC labeling them a hate group?
Why minimize the role of the most authentically pro life actor in the whole thing?
If there is so much hate filled vitriol out there, then why have there been so few incidents where abortion providers are attacked/shot/killed? (Hint 8 over the last 40 years)
Isn't the real story the incredible level of restraint shown by the pro life movement?
Why do we not assign the same types of blame to those who perpetrate terror attacks in the name of saving the planet?
Of course this applies to the various incidents that drive the BLM agenda.
"Hands up don't shoot", demonstrated to be false which doesn't stop the narrative being propagated.
What is the single common denominator to the vast majority of the cities where these police shootings take place?
Why isn't the media who is supposed to be accurately reporting events asking some of these questions?
Why aren't more people questioning the accuracy of the narrative, before they leap into action?
Why is there such a low value on Truth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The simple request that you provide an unrestricted blame free apology until you are free to comment here, appears to be a somewhat too complex concept for you.
I would like to thank you for the answers to the questions I asked, but you provided absolutely zero answers. Not surprising.
Oh, keep pretending that my deleting your comments is anything but a response to your inability to come up with an unqualified, blame free apology.
As I said in another post, I'd love for you to show some humility and just apologize so we don't have to continue with this. I guess you just can't put aside your pride and try some humility and grace for a change.
Craig,
"What is truth?" All depends on who you choose to believe. Typically it is "those with the public's ear" or "those who agree with me" or "those who make me feel good". Biblically, humans have a truth problem (Rom 1:18). In the CNN assurance that it was all fake they admit that Planned Parenthood was getting money for parts; they simply renamed it "reimbursement costs" and they stopped the payments. (They can't stop payments that never existed.) One of the popular reasons the videos are labeled "false" is that they were done without the knowledge of the people in the videos ... which doesn't make the information false.
I'm stunned by people who bemoan the "mass shootings" while arguing vehemently in favor of killing babies in the womb. I'm sick of people who knowingly label people like Garrett Swasey as "anti-abortion" right alongside the crackpot who killed people. Swasey et al. was pro-life, NOT anti-abortion. Once again, "anti-abortion" for people who are opposed to killing babies is a misrepresentation.
"What is truth?" Pilate lives today. Why would you expect anything different?
Stan
One of Dan's deleted claims was, since there have been no prosecutions of PP that definitively means that PP wasn't selling body parts. This despite the availability of actual video of people admitting that they do sell body parts, and that they change their abortion technique to maximize the value of said parts. The claim, of course, is that the video was edited. Of course it was edited for time, but that just ignores the availability of the unedited video. The problem is we didn't hear any complaints when the Zimmerman 911 call got edited, nor when the Bush National Guard documents were falsified. We say this in Ferguson, where violence and chaos reigned mostly based on a false narrative. We see it today in North Minneapolis where "nonviolent" protesters fling rocks and Molotov cocktails, flout numerous laws, and endanger their fellow citizens all based on a narrative that may or may not be true. We see this is the fact that a "mass shooting" defined down to a level that makes it seem as though there is slaughter in the streets, yet parts of Chicago are awash in murder that barely cracks the headlines.
I think that so many of these folks live in a world where they choose to blind themselves to their own inconsistencies and contradictions while bemoaning any perceived inconsistency or contradiction from their opponents.
I just started back into Scheaffer and am amazed at how accurately he predicted the track of the decline of culture.
As far as Truth, at least for the news media, it seems to be secondary or at least negotiable.
I guess I understand that sometimes early in the story all the details aren't known and bad information gets reported. But now what we see is that even as new information comes out that renders the bad information false, people still cling to the false. They are so attached to the narrative that they will knowingly and willingly ignore the Truth in order to further their agenda based on a lie.
Post a Comment