GarfieldJL Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/03/25/ny-times-strives-paint-more-positive-picture-cop-killer Basically the New York Times tried to generate sympathy for a man that murdered two police officers in cold-blood during a routine traffic stop. Then he killed two SWAT team members in the shoot-out that occurred afterward. I'm completely disgusted, but I'm not particularly surprised, no wonder places like the New York Times are trying to get a bailout. Thing is, they should go bankrupt due to their shoddy journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True_Avery Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2009/03/25/ny-times-strives-paint-more-positive-picture-cop-killer Basically the New York Times tried to generate sympathy for a man that murdered two police officers in cold-blood during a routine traffic stop. Then he killed two SWAT team members in the shoot-out that occurred afterward. Sorry, but I'm not someone who labels someone evil right on the spot so I fail to see how talking about this mans life is bad journalism. It is better than "man kills two cops" on front page. Least NYT's tied to explore the humanity of the situation instead of the "This guy was so evil that he made evil scared!" which is frankly childish journalism. Sorry, NewsBusters, but there is no such thing as a clear-cut case. NYT's does not need to apologize or retract any statements when they delved into a story and told a side that was not being reported. To suggest this was clear-cut is to show the ignorance of Newsbusters and how little they understand about actual journalism and how far down they are willing to go to pick at scraps. I'm completely disgusted, but I'm not particularly surprised, no wonder places like the New York Times are trying to get a bailout. Thing is, they should go bankrupt due to their shoddy journalism. What shoddy journalism? There was a story, they explored it, and then they published it. They told a side that was not being expressed and acknowledged that the shooter was still a human being. While the man ruined his life and the lives of others, at least he got someone to try to look through his eyes no matter how muddy they may have been. Ever hear of sarcasm, Mr. O'Reilly uses it sometimes, that's something people who don't usually watch the Factor tend not to understand... Hahaha, yeah! Sodomy and abuse is funny! [/sarcasm] For someone who bottom feeds for sarcastic remarks to make threads about, you are awfully easy when someone on your side of the table makes a funny. It wasn't a tasteless joke or anything, it was a funny! Disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Garfield, there's two sides to every story. The NYT decided to look into the other side, seeing as people were already looking at the 'evil' part of it. Seems to me that you're just trying to make out that any news organisation that doesn't follow the same, tired, conservative standpoint to be a threat (Hardly surprising, though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.