4 ms·

I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest

I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.

Eelongate 5y ago
> I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc. Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  > Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases. We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn. If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable. But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates. Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again. The result is a loss of trust. What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.
ryantgtg 5y ago
Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.
- hn8788 5y ago
  It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon? The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
    - katbyte 5y ago
      Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?
      - ALittleLight 5y ago
        That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.
voldacar 5y ago
> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue

Eelongate 5y ago

> I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc. Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases. We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn. If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable. But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates. Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again. The result is a loss of trust. What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.

ryantgtg 5y ago

Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.

hn8788 5y ago
It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary! Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon? The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.
  - katbyte 5y ago
    Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.

voldacar 5y ago

> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue