Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Rayshard Brooks Killed By Police In Atlanta. Free TVs For Everyone..


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

You and buddy seem to be implying people need a story that doesn't offend your tender sensitivities or are too stupid to figure out themselves what happened based on the facts.  You're not implying the media should be biased towards cops are you?

I'm suggesting they try to be accurate and honest and try not to give people the wrong impression of what happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

At some point people need to take responsibility for their actions.  This instance isn’t even close to being in the same ball park as George Floyd.  But the world continues to have lost its mind, aban

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/family-says-man-killed-by-police-was-27-year-old-father-four/AWYFPVV46FAWNOEEQ37DDSZUUE/?fbclid=IwAR12m9TO2QubonFZCxtG5hFokvnUxnT6Ay7TtaJRfd5Kj-Q_8H8Ep9N-Uak

Me also.  I think the way to do it is for people to take on the task of criticizing their political cousins, even the extremists. For the politicians responsible for getting us through this, gran

Posted Images

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Because they're encapsulating the whole story in one quick sound byte at the beginning of the show, which sets the tone. 

The tone should always be set to "accuracy", never to "inflammatory". 

No, that's what your bullshit filter is for. Fortunately these filters are unique in that they even filter your own biases. You do have to throw the valve that bypasses them however. I suspect your's is seized up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, that's what your bullshit filter is for. Fortunately these filters are unique in that they even filter your own biases. You do have to throw the valve that bypasses them however. I suspect your's is seized up.

This from the person who couldn't even comprehend why it was inaccurate to just say "he was shot in the back while he was running...". LMAO.

The media shouldn't be presenting things to you in a manner that makes you have to figure out that they are essentially lying to you. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This from the person who couldn't even comprehend why it was inaccurate to just say "he was shot in the back while he was running...". LMAO.

Liar. 

The media shouldn't be presenting things to you in a manner that makes you have to figure out that they are essentially lying to you.

I see. You're suggesting you don't like thinking fior yourself and resent it when other people do/can.

I'm guessing you have no comprehension just how much of a window you've opened on how your mind works.

I'd leave the window wide open for awhile and air the place out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Liar. 

If your post isn't removed by mods, and this forum has to become a total sandbox, then so be it, but here's the unabridged truth:

You're the biggest liar on this site eyeball, maybe the entire internet. I catch you on actual lies almost every single day. Basically nothing that you say has a smidgeon of accuracy, common sense or truth.

For a person like you to call me a liar is the epitome of farcical.

Quote

I see. You're suggesting you don't like thinking fior yourself and resent it when other people do/can.

Of course this is wrong, to the point of being ludicrous, as usual.

I do think for myself, and in this day and age that's obviously pretty rare or CNN and CTV wouldn't have any viewers left. 

It actually is important for broadcasters to portray an honest, accurate depiction of major news events, especially when they're covering sensitive topics like this. For you to suggest that they can be deceptive and just assume that their viewers should figure it out for themselves is utterly idiotic.

Quote

I'm guessing you have no comprehension just how much of a window you've opened on how your mind works.

I'd leave the window wide open for awhile and air the place out.

You've just advocated for complete dishonesty in broadcasting eyeball. That's as big of a window to one's idiocy as could ever be opened. 

Your brain doesn't need to be aired out, it needs to start start working. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

You're the biggest liar on this site eyeball, maybe the entire internet.  

The biggest liar on the Internet?

Wow. Coming from the 2nd biggest all I can say is thanks for the shout out! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The biggest liar on the Internet?

Wow. Coming from the 2nd biggest all I can say is thanks for the shout out! :)

 

Difference between me and you is that I've posted lots of examples of you actually lying. 

I challenge you to find a single example of me lying here little buddy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Difference between me and you is that I've posted lots of examples of you actually lying. 

I challenge you to find a single example of me lying here little buddy. 

Here you go. As always I rarely have to leave the page to find the latest one.

13 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This from the person who couldn't even comprehend why it was inaccurate to just say "he was shot in the back while he was running...". LMAO.

CTV didn't leave out the fact he fired a Taser any more than they left out the fact he was shot in the back and neither did I. You seem too be the only one desperate to separate the two as if they're completely different incidents. 

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Here you go. As always I rarely have to leave the page to find the latest one.

CTV didn't leave out the fact he fired a Taser any more than they left out the fact he was shot in the back and neither did I. You seem too be the only one desperate to separate the two as if they're completely different incidents. 

CTV's opening monologue says "police in Atlanta shot a black man in the back while he was running away". 

Edited by WestCanMan
My bad, I forgot the word 'black'
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the lawyers of the other cop on TV yesterday. The one being charged for assault and not felony murder. 

He was asked why two grown-ass men got beat down by a drunk man. Paraphrasing, of course. 

The retort is that the non-murderer had no idea that the guy who was about to commit murder was about to try and cuff Mr. Brooks. 

Awful policing on so many levels. 

Edited by Boges
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boges said:

Saw the lawyers of the other cop on TV yesterday. The one being charged for assault and not felony murder. 

He was asked why two grown-ass men got beat down by a drunk man. Paraphrasing, of course. 

The retort is that the non-murderer had no idea that the guy who was about to commit murder was about to try and cuff Mr. Brooks. 

Awful policing on so many levels. 

The guy who had the taser out wasn't doing anything. He just kept saying "stop resisting or I'll taser you" but he didn't even taser him. He just lost his taser to the guy. 

Honestly, if you're holding a pistol by the grip and someone else grabs the barrel they'll always win because they have have a lot of leverage on you, but that cop was still just as useless as tits on a boar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The prosecutor in that case is just a huge liar and grandstander.

He said things like brooks was "slightly intoxicated" and described him as jovial, etc, which is quite misleading seeing as he punched a cop in the face among other things. 

Nice to know that .108 and passing out behind the wheel in Georgia is just slightly intoxicated as per their prosecutor's own words. I guess that at .095 with one eye open you're sober.

It was .07 here for the longest time, but now you can get busted below even that. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Boges said:

Saw the lawyers of the other cop on TV yesterday. The one being charged for assault and not felony murder. 

He was asked why two grown-ass men got beat down by a drunk man. Paraphrasing, of course. 

Because police are given almost no training in hand to hand combat, fighting, disarming techniques, etc. They're taught to use their tazer or gun. Because it's cheaper to train them to shoot than to defend themselves. Japanese are expected to get at least a black belt in Judo or some other martial art. This would not have happened to them.

4 hours ago, Boges said:

The retort is that the non-murderer had no idea that the guy who was about to commit murder was about to try and cuff Mr. Brooks. 

From what I'm reading elsewhere it is a virtual certainty that the cops involved will be found not guilty. The charges were laid by a DA up for re-election this year who is not doing well in the polls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2020 at 9:50 AM, WestCanMan said:

CTV's opening monologue says "police in Atlanta shot a black man in the back while he was running away". 

CTV also said he fired a Taser.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

CTV also said he fired a Taser.

 

In the opening monolgue that I saw, when they aired their big segment on racism against minorities by police, they carefully neglected to mention the taser. You, Icini, moonbox and other also think that's the way to go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

In the opening monolgue that I saw, when they aired their big segment on racism against minorities by police, they carefully neglected to mention the taser.

Prove it, cite something. You know the drill, evidence is the responsibility of the positive claimant and your own subjective experience is just that, your own.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Prove it, cite something. You know the drill, evidence is the responsibility of the positive claimant and your own subjective experience is just that, your own.

That one is probably worth having video of. I’ll try and dig it up later today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That one is probably worth having video of. I’ll try and dig it up later today. 

I'll especially be looking for evidence of the effort CTV took to be carefully neglectful - an inside whistle-blower who was fired or a retraction from a CTV CEO or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I'll especially be looking for evidence of the effort CTV took to be carefully neglectful - an inside whistle-blower who was fired or a retraction from a CTV CEO or something.

I just googled CTV National News for June 13th and this came up: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1970845

You have to watch 3 thirty-second commercials every time you go into their vault and I'm not here to make money for CTV so I won't be watching any more of their videos, but the headline segment here is a good example of how intentionally ignorant & inflammatory their news coverage is. 

"Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru" is their entire opening comment about the Brooks shooting at the beginning of this newscast. Then they go a voiceover of "We, as a country, can't breeeaathe anymore" while they're showing some footage, and then there's an angry black man jabbing his finger at the camera saying "Black lives matter! They alwaayys matter!", as if that's supposed to be news. 

They didn't start with "killed after punching a cop, stealing his taser, and shooting it at the officer". Not even "Killed after passing out drunk at a drive thru and getting into an altercation with police", they just open with their blatantly misleading & inflammatory quote.

CTV is pure filth. You can mange mange mange all you want. It will tickle your hate bone and get you all fired up to go chase some windmills.  

If you want to find the quote I mentioned earlier, you can wade through their feces and watch their commercials, the fact is that it's it's there. 

 

Your comment above is just stupid. CTV carefully phrases their opening monologue, and it is never a casual mistake that it is the exact way that it is. They neglected to mention all of the key elements of the event, and their coverage paints a grossly misleading picture of what happened. If that's good enough from one's perspective, that explains why so many people have such a limited/backwards understanding of most news events. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I just googled CTV National News for June 13th and this came up: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1970845

Yes I'm quite aware of what's triggered your subjective experience of the report.

Quote

Your comment above is just stupid. CTV carefully phrases their opening monologue, and it is never a casual mistake that it is the exact way that it is. They neglected to mention all of the key elements of the event, and their coverage paints a grossly misleading picture of what happened.

 For this sort of specific accusation you need a whistle blower or video/audio evidence of executive level manipulation.  You've stated your accusation as plainly as it gets - their neglect is not a casual mistake and that painting a grossly misleading picture is an act of wilful intent.

Now you just have to prove it.  My comment is not the least bit stupid it's to inconvenient for you to approach objectively.  This is a stupid comment;

Quote

If that's good enough from one's perspective, that explains why so many people have such a limited/backwards understanding of most news events.

It takes some special kind of chutzpah to eschew objectivity while apparently declaring your own subjective perspective is all the evidence anyone needs to accept the accusations you make. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 5:13 PM, eyeball said:

Yes you prove it. 

Thanks. 

I just used my 'CTV-level' editorial skills to quote your post.

It's not an exact replica of your initial post but it's close enough to meet your standards, right? 

Good to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I just used my 'CTV-level' editorial skills to quote your post.

It's not an exact replica of your initial post but it's close enough to meet your standards, right? 

No it's not even near to being close. You clearly can't even meet your own sack-o-shit standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hannah Fizer was killed by police 2 weeks ago.  Still not one second of coverage in the mainstream media.  But she was white.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Shady said:

Hannah Fizer was killed by police 2 weeks ago.  Still not one second of coverage in the mainstream media.  But she was white.

Is that why you don't have any cites? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

it's close. 

See, all I did there was selectively choose your own words, in their correct order,  from your post, that fit my narrative, and neglected to use the parts of your post that didn't fit my narrative. 

That's like blaring out a headline where CTV uses the parts of a story that fit their narrative, and neglect the parts of a story that don't fit their narrative. Or maybe it was just sloppy editing. The onus is on you to PROVE that it was intentionally. You need a whistleblower in my office, or my post stands as an accurate reflection of your post.

See how that works?

 

Now that you've made it clear that you're ok with CTV's editorial standards it's so much easier replying to your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...