No FOX NEWS bias

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Kytro

That is like saying all civilians killed in combat were targeted

Not at all. That's like saying I attacked a home if I walk up to a house militants happen to be in and throw a bomb in it to blow up everyone without regard to civilians. In that case, the home was attacked, regardless of who my intended enemy was. And if it was an American soldier doing it in say Iran, the media should would 100% so and not hide it by saying a "combatant" or some other term to not let the people know it was an American responsible for it.

Another example would be the White House. If there's a peace rally out on the lawn if I start bombing the people outside and throwing bombs inside the White House, the media would say the White House was attacked. And they would be right.

There's so much wrong with this article, the title isn't one of them.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not at all. That's like saying I attacked a home if I walk up to a house militants happen to be in and throw a bomb in it to blow up everyone without regard to civilians. In that case, the home was attacked, regardless of who my intended enemy was.

That would be targeting your home in order to target an individual, and I agree that would be regardless of if any other people were present or not

Originally Posted by JaJae

And if it was an American soldier doing it in say Iran, the media should would 100% so and not hide it by saying a "combatant" or some other term to not let the people know it was an American responsible for it.

If they were targeting militants and attacked a position also occupied by civilians knowing they were there, they would be targeting the civilians as well.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not at all. That's like saying I attacked a home if I walk up to a house militants happen to be in and throw a bomb in it to blow up everyone without regard to civilians. In that case, the home was attacked, regardless of who my intended enemy was.

That would be targeting your home in order to target an individual, and I agree that would be regardless of if any other people were present or not

Originally Posted by JaJae

And if it was an American soldier doing it in say Iran, the media should would 100% so and not hide it by saying a "combatant" or some other term to not let the people know it was an American responsible for it.

If they were targeting militants and attacked a position also occupied by civilians knowing they were there, they would be targeting the civilians as well.

Another example would be the White House. If there's a peace rally out on the lawn if I start bombing the people outside and throwing bombs inside the White House, the media would say the White House was attacked. And they would be right.

There's so much wrong with this article, the title isn't one of them.[/quote]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not at all. That's like saying I attacked a home if I walk up to a house militants happen to be in and throw a bomb in it to blow up everyone without regard to civilians. In that case, the home was attacked, regardless of who my intended enemy was.

That would be targeting your home in order to target an individual, and I agree that would be regardless of if any other people were present or not

Originally Posted by JaJae

And if it was an American soldier doing it in say Iran, the media should would 100% so and not hide it by saying a "combatant" or some other term to not let the people know it was an American responsible for it.

If they were targeting militants and attacked a position also occupied by civilians knowing they were there, they would be targeting the civilians as well.


Another example would be the White House. If there's a peace rally out on the lawn if I start bombing the people outside and throwing bombs inside the White House, the media would say the White House was attacked. And they would be right.

There's so much wrong with this article, the title isn't one of them.[/quote]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Another example would be the White House. If there's a peace rally out on the lawn if I start bombing the people outside and throwing bombs inside the White House, the media would say the White House was attacked. And they would be right.

There's so much wrong with this article, the title isn't one of them.

The title is misleading, it implies they went to the school in order to attack the school. I disagree that attacking people on the lawn of the white house is an attack on the white house, unless they specifically target it (or generally do so).

It is a subtle difference based on belonging to a group and scope of attack. It would have been more honest for the title to specify the group attacked.

[lew]

[Kytro]

How on earth did that happen

[Diesel66]

arrived late to the parthy but

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

There's so much wrong with this article, the title isn't one of them.

I haven't given it an in-depth analysis, but what is 'so much wrong' about this article? What makes this article any different than every other news article put out?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I haven't given it an in-depth analysis, but what is 'so much wrong' about this article? What makes this article any different than every other news article put out?

The fact that no other American news outlet identified the attackers as al-Qaida. Calling them muslim extremists rather than al-Qaida shows a huge bias. You read the article and don't even know who did it thinking it was just muslim extremists or a riot, when in actuality it was al-Qaida and AP decided to not inform us of this information. I don't think it's possible to have an unbiased article on an al-Qaida attack without mentioning al-Qaida. Not wanting American readers to know it was al-Qaida shows a bias.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Really the whole article is wrought with bias.

Thank God there is sanity in this world, the article doesn't have a hint of objectivity

Can you produce the same bias from CNN/MSNBC articles...news article

No

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Can you produce the same bias from CNN/MSNBC articles...news article

No

Why go to a news article when you can just tune in to their channel?

CNN calls Gonzales a loser...no bias?