3 ms·
It’s always about events that happened and not about things that didn’t happen. This conversation and the above quote in particular remind me of this article p
by grownseed 10y ago
It’s always about events that happened and not about things that didn’t happen.
This conversation and the above quote in particular remind me of this article posted here a while back: "Why the world is not falling apart" (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...)
We never see a reporter saying to the camera, “Here we are, live from a country where a war has not broken out”—or a city that has not been bombed, or a school that has not been shot up.
I'm all for the right for free speech, but that doesn't mean that deliberate fear-mongering shouldn't be reprimanded.
- qu4z-2 10y ago> deliberate fear-mongering [should] be reprimanded. By whom?
- grownseed 10y agoThat's a fair question and, not being hugely familiar with the legal system, I'm not sure what that would fall under. I'm thinking something along the lines of intentional deceit or unfair/manipulative representation of facts, but I'll admit to not knowing nearly enough about the law to point to anything in particular.
- qu4z-2 10y agoAs long as it needs to be intentional, I could maybe see it. I imagine it'd be difficult to prove intent, though. "Manipulative representation of facts" is tricky, because every representation aside from raw data has been manipulated in some way or another.