Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People should be free to choose what is best for themselves as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. I created this blog to discuss issues I have with big government, liberal media,and to talk about my support for capitalism and the Iraq War.
10 comments:
Another instance where a conservative blogger is trying to find a Bush bashing story where there is none. I read through the entire article and no where did Bush's name even pop up. It sounded much more like the problem was at the state level with state rules initially holding up the helicopters, then the wind. No where in that story did I find any Bush bashing (or even Republican bashing). In fact, it sounded kind of like they were praising Republicans for cutting through the red tape quickly when they discovered what the problem was.
Try again Diatribe.
The point was not about George Bush - it was about the media always reporting on things that go wrong and never on the stuff that goes right. There are a million stories out there about bravery and heroism, but they dont report that. It is frustrating to me to only have the negatives out there. I threw out the George Bush line as a refernce to the last disaster because it is funny.
"the media always reporting on things that go wrong and never on the stuff that goes right."
Perhaps your right wing leaning ways have just left you cynical because despite the headline, I read that article to be a positive one about how initially there were rules in place that wouldn't allow the planes in the air, but the government was able to quickly cut through the red tape and fix the problem.
Did you miss the headline of their story?
Did you miss the rest of the story?
Just to be clear. If you are writing a story - where do you put the main point that you are trying to get across at? Thanks for playing.
So you didn't actually read the article then.
So if my headline was Matt killed a baby - I am to not assume that is the point the paper is trying to get across.
"Bureaucracy hampered initial Calif. fire efforts
Officials vow to review rules that kept firefighting aircraft on ground"
OK, that was the headline. The point of a headline is to draw an audience in to read the WHOLE article. I know you're intelligent enough to know that you can't get the whole story by just reading the headline.
"So if my headline was Matt killed a baby - I am to not assume that is the point the paper is trying to get across."
With the headline "Matt killed a baby" you can assume that, yes, I did indeed kill a baby. But you'd have to actually read the article to see if I murdered the baby maliciously or if maybe I was involved in a car accident where my tire exploded causing me to lose control and careen into a daycare.
Go back and read the story again (or for the first time). You might find the good part of it.
Here's a story from Fox News with a rather misleading headline that proves why you should read the article fully before assuming you know what it's about.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306076,00.html
The headline reads "Scientists Find Oldest Living Animal, Then Kill It". Makes you think they deliberately, maliciously killed this animal because it was the oldest animal ever recorded.
However, they only discovered it was the oldest animal after they opened up the clam and cut through it's shell to count it's rings.
This headline is a bit misleading, or at the least creates some confusion. But the headline did it's job. It made me read the article.
Post a Comment