A tale of two headlines.

[TexMichFan]

Maxine Waters heckled by pro-Trump protesters at Inglewood town hall

N.J. Rep. Tom MacArthur faces angry town hall over health care

Looks like Waters has protesters and she is heckled and MacArthur is just facing angry people unhappy with him.

 

[The Tradition]

We got rid of Corrine Brown. Maxine needs to be next!

 

[gusto79]

Let's say one had a townhall where 90% of the people were pissed off and angry at the speaker, and one had a townhall where there were 5% pissed off and angry at the speaker. Should they have the same headline?

 

[TexMichFan]

Let's say one had a townhall where 90% of the people were pissed off and angry at the speaker, and one had a townhall where there were 5% pissed off and angry at the speaker. Should they have the same headline?

Go back and look at the headlines about the Tea Party and Democrats about Obamacare and see if your point is valid.

 

[gusto79]

Go back and look at the headlines about the Tea Party and Democrats about Obamacare and see if your point is valid.

You made the OP. Maybe you should go back and find the evidence if you want to make the point. I think there is a good chance you are right, but I don't think the examples you give in the OP make the point because they are different.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

How is either headline disingenuous?

When most mainstream media outlets reported the group of black teenagers who kidnapped the mentally disabled white Trump supporter as "Angry teens kidnap mentally challenged Trump supporter" and failed to mention the obvious racial angle of the story, I was completely on board with that being an example of liberal media bias about race. However, the connection you are trying to draw with media bias in this case is ridiculous.

Some of you guys are just as bad as liberals in terms of whining like little b!tc#es. Wah wah wah, the liberal media are so unfair, such fake news. Wah wah wah. Put the "liberal media" card back in the deck on this one. This isn't one of those times. I don't care what Orange Messiah says, not everything in the media is slanted against you.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

How is either headline disingenuous?

When most mainstream media outlets reported the group of black teenagers who kidnapped the mentally disabled white Trump supporter as "Angry teens kidnap mentally challenged Trump supporter" and failed to mention the obvious racial angle of the story, I was completely on board with that being an example of liberal media bias about race. However, the connection you are trying to draw with media bias in this case is ridiculous.

Some of you guys are just as bad as liberals in terms of whining like little b!tc#es. Wah wah wah, the liberal media are so unfair, such fake news. Wah wah wah. Put the "liberal media" card back in the deck on this one. This isn't one of those times. I don't care what Orange Messiah says, not everything in the media is slanted against you.

What liberal media?

 

[EZ2BJZ]

What liberal media?

You don't believe there are liberal media biases in some mainstream media outlets? Granted, it's not as bad as the conservative right propaganda machine called Faux News, but you really don't believe it exists? Or am I not getting the facetious tone?

 

[BubsFinn]

You made the OP. Maybe you should go back and find the evidence if you want to make the point. I think there is a good chance you are right, but I don't think the examples you give in the OP make the point because they are different.

His point was that the headlines are different. I don't know what happened in the two events so I can't comment on how accurate the headlines are, but the headlines themselves categorized people upset with Waters as "hecklers," and the people upset with MacArthur as "angry." The negative connotation of "heckler" paints Waters as a victim of unreasonable malcontents. The other article calls those upset with MacArthur as "angry," implying he did something to draw their ire. The percentage of the crowd in question does not matter.
Again, I have no idea what happened at either of the events, or who attended. This is just an observation on the headlines of the stories about the events. It is possible the headlines are accurate, but I'm not sure how one would go about proving it, unless those heckling Waters were not angry, and those angry with MacArthur weren't heckling, but rather voiced their objections calmly and without disrupting the event (which I find hard to believe). They both seem to be about politicians facing people who disagree with them. One headline implies those people are wrong and the other implies those people are right.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You don't believe there are liberal media biases in some mainstream media outlets? Granted, it's not as bad as the conservative right propaganda machine called Faux News, but you really don't believe it exists? Or am I not getting the facetious tone?

Sure there are a few. I've just been pushing back against this meme for a while because it was so insidious. Too many on the right thought pretty much all the media were liberal. And they would trot out silly arguments to prove it, like more journalists contribute to Ds than to Rs. When in fact, the main reason why they didn't like the MSM (other than Fox) was because they reported facts, and the facts usually weren't on their side. Sadly, some of the fairly trustworthy members of the MSM have become more Fox-like in their partisanship in recent years - and especially so in the last year.

That said, I'm not sure I'd use "liberal" to describe them. They have become partisan - with the emphasis on "party."

So whereas we used to have the mainstream and the newspapers of record that that right liked to call liberal but weren't really, plus Fox, which was basically a propaganda organ for the GOP, religion and wingnuts, now we have formerly fairly responsible press who are shilling for the Ds and using Fox strategies.

A lot of important issues don't get the coverage they need when the press is this degraded.

 

[gusto79]

His point was that the headlines are different. I don't know what happened in the two events so I can't comment on how accurate the headlines are, but the headlines themselves categorized people upset with Waters as "hecklers," and the people upset with MacArthur as "angry." The negative connotation of "heckler" paints Waters as a victim of unreasonable malcontents. The other article calls those upset with MacArthur as "angry," implying he did something to draw their ire. The percentage of the crowd in question does not matter.
Again, I have no idea what happened at either of the events, or who attended. This is just an observation on the headlines of the stories about the events. It is possible the headlines are accurate, but I'm not sure how one would go about proving it, unless those heckling Waters were not angry, and those angry with MacArthur weren't heckling, but rather voiced their objections calmly and without disrupting the event (which I find hard to believe). They both seem to be about politicians facing people who disagree with them. One headline implies those people are wrong and the other implies those people are right.

There is a difference between the majority of the crowd being angry and a few people heckling. If during the campaign, when there would be a handful of protesters that would heckle and disrupt Trump events, I wouldn't expect the headline to be "Trump faces angry townhall". If there was an example of that, that would be a good headline to cite to make the point of a bias in how the headlines were written.