If you want to see the problem with the media in a nutshell, let’s start with this New York Times headline, “Fiery Speeches, But No Sign of Violence.”
Why would there be signs of violence? Why make something that didn’t happen and that no one thought would happen into the topic?
And here’s CNN, “Peaceful Virginia gun-rights rally concludes despite earlier fears of extremist violence.”
Now let’s take FOX News. “Virginia’s Capitol flooded with gun rights activists for Second Amendment rally.”
Which of these headlines actually relevantly describe what happened?
The FOX News headline may be a tad enthusiastic, but it’s fact-based. Its reporting addresses what happened, rather than bitterly clinging to a discredited narrative about what didn’t.
Why is “extremist violence” rather than the activists and their agenda at the center of media reporting?
The media predicted violence. The violence failed to materialize. And the media sums up its coverage by focusing on its failed narrative rather than on what actually happened.
Leave a Reply