Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. The general point is that there are plenty of subtle ways to present/disseminate new that allows bias to seep through. In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existi…
> The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well. I suppose you can, but your comment needed a better transition to make it clear what you were doing. The original comment brought CNN's coverage of a topic (in an unverifiable way) to make a general claim that "ma…
The video was public well before Grosskreutz admitted to drawing his weapon at Rittenhouse as he approached him, the Facebook post after the incident was known about. They should’ve informed their audience of these facts more so than they were informed of Grosskreutz’s fear of his life, however the latter was the most broadly disseminated piece of info by being a headline item. “Video shows Kenosha shooting victim drawing gun as he was shot” was not a headline, “Kenosha shooting victim testifies” was not the headline and would’ve been a less blatantly biased choice.
It’s very simple. A WP reader is more likely to find out from being their audience that Grosskreutz feared for his life than the other facts that I’ve mention that are much more interesting and critical to the case, and it’s by design
> and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name
I did not quote the NYT link. The name of the WP is in the url that I posted. Sorry I didn’t make clear the context
> That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline?
It would’ve been worse had they been completely silent of that part of the testimony, I agree. It would’ve been harder for me to verify though, that a publication mentioned it not even once, so I choose this example to save time. But no, your response completely missed my main point, they don’t have to not update it, dissemination of a certain piece of information in terms of its reach can be diminished without it reaching zero. Statements can be used push a false narrative without being outright untrue. There are more tactful ways to mislead than simply lying, obviously. Edit: To answer your question, to enable the defense that you’ve just made