From a friend of mine:
Police: 54 guns found in teen's home...
cnn.com
Ok, ready for my rant? Hahaha … you're not, but read anyway if you want :-)
Here goes: Notice how the media has to over-sensationalize this whole thing? It's not enough to say 'a bad kid got a hold of some guns and killed the parents of this young girl' … no, they have to mention the kid's father was <gasp!> a hunter! And they had to mention that they have a website which shows him disemboweling a deer!
Now how is this relevant to the story???
Does it matter whether or not the kid's father was a hunter, except maybe to explain the questionable number of guns, but why mention the website?? Why mention the picture of him dressing a deer? And why not just say he was 'dressing' a deer?? That's what it's called. You know why they didn't use that word? Because it doesn't carry the same negative impact as the word 'disemboweling' … ! "Dressing' doesn't cause the squeamish to squirm. It doesn't repel the average person into the horrors of man vs. beast. 'Dressing' is more politically correct, but notice politically correctness only applies when they want it. And without the impact they wanted, there would be no need to even mention it. But they did, using the word of their choice, which is just another way for the media to tell us what to think or how to feel about a particular subject.
The reason is because the media is liberal biased. And being liberal biased, they can't miss any opportunity to line up behind the Hillary's, the Reno's, and all the other lame-o's who stand and say that guns kill people. Let's make the readers repulse at what they read - let's wrap as much negative around guns as we can, because they, after all, are the real killers! Not people … oh no! People don't kill people, guns do! Just like I never make spelling mistakes, my PENCIL does!!! Uh-huh … same logic.
David |
