3 ms·

Refusing to report gunfire at Trump rally and refusing to call it an assassination attempt. Instead it was "loud noises heard". https://townhall.com/tipsheet/

Refusing to report gunfire at Trump rally and refusing to call it an assassination attempt. Instead it was "loud noises heard". https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-reaction-to-trump-assassination-attempt-n2641833 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/07/13/media-rea...

mmooss 2y ago
That's a bizarre claim on your part. It was called an assassination attempt everywhere I looked; it was everywhere in the news.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  It will only sound bizarre if you didn't read ivewonyoung's link, which provides specific examples of big news outlets doing exactly what was claimed. Maybe everywhere you looked didn't do that, but if so you weren't looking at NBC, MSNBC, the Washington Post or CNN at the time of the attack. The link supplies screenshots of their reporting in all cases.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    I read lots of news from many, many sources, including those. Nobody had a problem calling it an assassination attempt once there was evidence of that that's what it was. There are many more likely, alternative explanations for any delay. Of course they shouldn't conclude anything about anything without evidence; they shouldn't say 'assassination' as soon as someone hears a loud bang. In fact, many report Trump was hit by a bullet when, last I knew, we had no evidence that it wasn't shrapnel that cut him (but I haven't really kept up with new developments).
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Come on, it was a political rally at which shots rang out and someone behind Trump was killed on the spot by a bullet, with the shooter being killed on the rooftops seconds later by snipers and the Secret Service evacuating a former President whilst he yelled "fight fight fight". You don't need extensive investigative journalism to work out what happened there, and indeed most other news outlets reported it correctly immediately. It was only the usual suspects who had trouble writing informative headlines. There is no excusing that behavior: they didn't want to report it correctly as an assassination attempt because they have come to exist purely to fight ideological war against the Republicans and everything they say or do is passed through a "does this hurt Trump" filter first. So whilst a man bled out on the stalls they were reporting it as if the cause of the events were a great mystery. Also notice how totally disinterested they've been in the story of the shooter(s). We can infer a lot about why.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Yes, come on. I could point out that the parent comment is all fact-free speculation about states of mind, but we both know what is really happening: You are just repeating a certain political movement's dogma (that we've both heard many, many times). Following such a movement is a sure way to do a lot of bad things. And you can see the movement insists that not only you follow it and I must follow it, but if journalists don't immediately repeat its dogma, they must be shut down. Independent thought is not allowed. Mass dogma like that is nothing more than a means to power for the leaders, who without any check on them - whatever they say is ardently believed and argued for, a requirement of acceptance, and really the whole point of the movement - can steer people wherever they want. The only protection in life, the only way, is to think independently for oneself. Facts are our anchor to reality; straying far from them is certain to lead to mistakes. And we need reject anyone who says otherwise. Such movements, which insist on adherence, are particularly dangerous.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      >Nobody had a problem calling it an assassination attempt once there was evidence of that that's what it was. Only once there was overwhelming evidence and they looked like complete morons for originally portraying it as “old man scared by noises”
    - cempaka 2y ago
      There's not really even any solid evidence that Trump was hit with shrapnel.

mmooss 2y ago

That's a bizarre claim on your part. It was called an assassination attempt everywhere I looked; it was everywhere in the news.

mike_hearn 2y ago
It will only sound bizarre if you didn't read ivewonyoung's link, which provides specific examples of big news outlets doing exactly what was claimed. Maybe everywhere you looked didn't do that, but if so you weren't looking at NBC, MSNBC, the Washington Post or CNN at the time of the attack. The link supplies screenshots of their reporting in all cases.
- mmooss 2y ago
  I read lots of news from many, many sources, including those. Nobody had a problem calling it an assassination attempt once there was evidence of that that's what it was. There are many more likely, alternative explanations for any delay. Of course they shouldn't conclude anything about anything without evidence; they shouldn't say 'assassination' as soon as someone hears a loud bang. In fact, many report Trump was hit by a bullet when, last I knew, we had no evidence that it wasn't shrapnel that cut him (but I haven't really kept up with new developments).
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Come on, it was a political rally at which shots rang out and someone behind Trump was killed on the spot by a bullet, with the shooter being killed on the rooftops seconds later by snipers and the Secret Service evacuating a former President whilst he yelled "fight fight fight". You don't need extensive investigative journalism to work out what happened there, and indeed most other news outlets reported it correctly immediately. It was only the usual suspects who had trouble writing informative headlines. There is no excusing that behavior: they didn't want to report it correctly as an assassination attempt because they have come to exist purely to fight ideological war against the Republicans and everything they say or do is passed through a "does this hurt Trump" filter first. So whilst a man bled out on the stalls they were reporting it as if the cause of the events were a great mystery. Also notice how totally disinterested they've been in the story of the shooter(s). We can infer a lot about why.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Yes, come on. I could point out that the parent comment is all fact-free speculation about states of mind, but we both know what is really happening: You are just repeating a certain political movement's dogma (that we've both heard many, many times). Following such a movement is a sure way to do a lot of bad things. And you can see the movement insists that not only you follow it and I must follow it, but if journalists don't immediately repeat its dogma, they must be shut down. Independent thought is not allowed. Mass dogma like that is nothing more than a means to power for the leaders, who without any check on them - whatever they say is ardently believed and argued for, a requirement of acceptance, and really the whole point of the movement - can steer people wherever they want. The only protection in life, the only way, is to think independently for oneself. Facts are our anchor to reality; straying far from them is certain to lead to mistakes. And we need reject anyone who says otherwise. Such movements, which insist on adherence, are particularly dangerous.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    >Nobody had a problem calling it an assassination attempt once there was evidence of that that's what it was. Only once there was overwhelming evidence and they looked like complete morons for originally portraying it as “old man scared by noises”
  - cempaka 2y ago
    There's not really even any solid evidence that Trump was hit with shrapnel.