Who really kicked in the door?

In the rescue of Amanda Berry and her daughter, was it Charles Ramsey (the somewhat stereotypical but entertaining black man) or was it Angel Cordero (the, apparently, undocumented immigrant)?
Many would likely say that it doesn’t matter. But I think that the answer could suggest some revealing things about how our mass media provides us with information that is accepted as truth while not necessarily being factual. It could also say something about how we, the audience, accept information as being true based more on emotional influences rather than facts.

Many would likely say that it doesn’t matter. But I think that the answer could suggest some revealing things about how our mass media provides us with information that is accepted as truth while not necessarily being factual.
or the government for that matter...or both. In the Sandy Hook outrage, it came out that Adam Lanza tried to buy guns legally but what was turned down, which if true, makes one wonder why they man wasn't at least investigated if not arrested for the attempt. The problem: Apparantly, this never happened. At least that's the claim being made by the local government. This leaves you with the following uncomfortable possibilities. A) The media got it right and Adam Lanza...a legally disqualified buyer...did in fact try to buy weapons but was turned down, and the local government is trying to cover up a spectacular and ultimately grisly mistake, B) The Media just made it up whole cloth out of nothing more then rumour and innuendo, or C) A sick combination of both (A) and (B). After all, we all just know that the news media and the government would never lie, cover up mistakes, or come to conclusions without first knowing all the facts, right???? Don't forget, these are the same people who claim to know better then us "Little people" and who want us to trust them.

Yes, it seems to me that there are some fundamentally dysfunctional aspects to our mass media system, not the least of which is the transformation of our news providers (over the past couple of decades) to becoming an entertainment industry rather than, primarily, a provider of information.

I am no lawyer, but regarding the mass media, it seems like libel laws are a bit too weak right now. People seem to be unable to defend themselves against reckless speculation.

In the Cleveland 10 year abduction case, the “fast breaking entertainment news media” found an entertaining guy to be “The Hero”, and he was quickly hailed as such across all the “entertainment/news” media. Then it turns out that the “hero” who clained to be the person who kicked down the door and pulled Amanda Berry and her child out of captivity, may not have been the person that actually did that.
The “entertaiment/news” media doesn’t seem to care whether it dupes us, the audience, they just seem to care about ratings. And, it leads me to wonder whether, we, the audience, don’t care so much that we are duped, as that we are entertained.

Angel Cordero doesn’t speak much English and is reticent to speak out, while the other gentleman has no such compunction, and is a very entertainingly verbose figure, perfectly willing to take all the credit. He makes for good tv ratings…and it IS all about the ratings. I do hope Cordero is able to claim his reward.

In the rescue of Amanda Berry and her daughter, was it Charles Ramsey (the somewhat stereotypical but entertaining black man) or was it Angel Cordero (the, apparently, undocumented immigrant)? Many would likely say that it doesn't matter. But I think that the answer could suggest some revealing things about how our mass media provides us with information that is accepted as truth while not necessarily being factual. It could also say something about how we, the audience, accept information as being true based more on emotional influences rather than facts.
I'm not sure who is more incompetent, the police or the media. They seem to be in a race for the National Incompetence Award. I'd say the cops are a little ahead but the media is gaining on them. What a country! Lois
Many would likely say that it doesn't matter. But I think that the answer could suggest some revealing things about how our mass media provides us with information that is accepted as truth while not necessarily being factual. It could also say something about how we, the audience, accept information as being true based more on emotional influences rather than facts.
I think you've hit the bulls-eye. Emotion will always trump facts. On the good side, mass media doesn't matter a lot anymore - at least the to the say, under 40-45 group.
Many would likely say that it doesn't matter. But I think that the answer could suggest some revealing things about how our mass media provides us with information that is accepted as truth while not necessarily being factual. It could also say something about how we, the audience, accept information as being true based more on emotional influences rather than facts.
I think you've hit the bulls-eye. Emotion will always trump facts. On the good side, mass media doesn't matter a lot anymore - at least the to the say, under 40-45 group. Does that mean that the under 40-45 age group are more factually informed?

Most of us now get our news from the electronic media and via TV so my guess is the younger cried but check out which is the best and worst for info: one of the former posters warned us about this:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/174826/survey-nprs-listeners-best-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/
Cap’t Jack

Many would likely say that it doesn't matter. But I think that the answer could suggest some revealing things about how our mass media provides us with information that is accepted as truth while not necessarily being factual. It could also say something about how we, the audience, accept information as being true based more on emotional influences rather than facts.
I think you've hit the bulls-eye. Emotion will always trump facts. On the good side, mass media doesn't matter a lot anymore - at least the to the say, under 40-45 group. Does that mean that the under 40-45 age group are more factually informed?Very unlikely. :down: