How a false media narrative made Ferguson worse

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Nov 26, 2014.

  1. Revmitchell

    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Feb 18, 2006
    Likes Received:
    It was a split-screen spectacle, the president of the United States appealing for calm while Ferguson was starting to erupt in flames.

    As Obama was saying “there is inevitably going to be some negative reaction, and it will make for good TV,” the images of tear gas and looting were competing for attention.

    I don’t know that anything the president said at that point could have deterred the protestors and agitators after no indictment was returned, and here’s why: They were reacting to a media narrative that hardened into cement soon after the tragedy. And we now know that narrative was filled with misinformation.

    We now know that some eyewitnesses changed their stories, or admitted they never actually saw the shooting.

    But their accounts echoed across the media landscape, that Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the back, that Brown had his hands up, that he was trying to surrender.

    As St. Louis County prosecutor Robert McCullough said in scolding the Fourth Estate:

    “The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24 hour news cycle, and its insatiable appetite for something for anything to talk about,” he said. “Following closely behind were non-stop rumors on social media.”
  2. poncho

    Expand Collapse

    Mar 30, 2004
    Likes Received:
    This isn't news.

    This is what the media does. It creates narratives regardless of the evidence or the lack there of. It doesn't inform us it manipulates us.

    Been telling you all this for months now. More like years.

    Russian invasion? Flight MH17? Libya? Syria? Moderate rebels? ISIS? Iraq?

Share This Page