Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I don't know. I (finally) hooked up to coverage last night on a streaming site, and saw some shots - quite a lot of shots, actually - of some very violent action on the protesters' behalf. I saw people running past other poeple waiting in a line and smacking them and yelling things at them. I saw tons of people fighting cops. I saw a parade float burning. Overall, my impression was that there was a very significant amount of violent demonstration going on. But, even watching a work TV today, with just network channels, this is being downplayed.
Bias? I don't know for sure. What I do know is, some sites are showing video, and those videos show a great deal of violence. Other sites and stations are talking about how peaceful everything is, and interviewing Grandmas for Kerry. This dichotomy nicely matches how I would classify them based on a lib-conserv continuum. If the cons were simply saying "wow, look at the violence", I might be suspicious. But, unless they're faking the vids, well, they're showing me things that the lib-associated media aren't bothering to show me.
I'm back to the Andy Rooney thing - why is it that, when a supermarket scanner screws up, it's always for a higher price?
|
Bilmore, you were the first to point out how, when you attended a Bush event in your town, the crowd was both pro- and anti-Bush and yet everyone was well-behaved and civil. why is it that you automatically assume people protesting in New York are primarily being violent?
Your initial post was not that you had seen evidencxe of widespread violent protest. You acknowledged that you had not seen much evidence of violent protest at all.
