3 ms·

This is incredibly easy to prove. Count all the good stories that have happened, and all the bad. Compare the ratios to different publications. Of course, it i

• popularflea 12y ago
  Well we know the media never prints libelous stories... Like Duke Lacrosse, Jackie's "rape", "Hands up don't shoot!", ad nauseum. Lol. Everyone has biases. Good reporting ought to address both sides equally. This article doesn't do that - it is shoddy reporting. Regardless, readers always ought to ask, " what are the other possibilities, here? Is this author credible? Which side does this author favor? Is each side being given equal space?" Comments on this article prove that people don't do that, unfortunately.
• wtbob 12y ago
  > This is incredibly easy to prove. Count all the good stories that have happened, and all the bad. Compare the ratios to different publications. I think that's likely to be a lot more difficult than you think: how does an independent observer know what the count of good and bad events is, rather than the count of good & bad published events? The trouble is that if an event isn't published, it's practically invisible to an observer. This is a related issue to the fact that many sensational crimes are less common today, but perceived to be more common due to over-coverage in the media.