What is wrong with this picture Chicago Tribune!!

[Gregg]

well if 80 people are being shot in one weekend, and 20 killed, the problem is actually pretty damn bad, regardless of what language is being used to report it. I'd suggest that the media coverage of it is low on the "bad" list of things here.

20 people were not killed.

I am pretty sure I did not suggest that it should be at the top of the list.

When you mention bad list of things here were you talking about your country or RJ?

I wish I could find a news outlet that I had confidence in that would report facts. That would not try to create news, That would put opinion pieces clearly marked opinion.

[GwynnInTheHall]

If 20 RJ posters died, 5 would have to come back from the dead and die again cuz there aren't that many of us any more.

[revo]

Or they want you to think the problem is worse than it is.

And that is ridiculous as it is so so bad already. What about just giving accurate facts and letting us come to our own thoughts and conclusions?

Or, what is most likely the case, is they had conflicting police reports on some but were able to confirm that at least 80 were shot, and this is an evolving story.

There’s no ulterior motives.

Doing a Google search for “Chicago Weekend Shootings” turns up many articles from different Chicago outlets reporting “.....at least x people were shot” which is similar to what you’re referring to here.

[TranaGreg]

20 people were not killed.

I am pretty sure I did not suggest that it should be at the top of the list.

When you mention bad list of things here were you talking about your country or RJ?

I wish I could find a news outlet that I had confidence in that would report facts. That would not try to create news, That would put opinion pieces clearly marked opinion.

I stand corrected, some number less than 20. Still, 80 people shot, geez ...

edit: when I said "here" in my previous post I meant "in this situation" ... poor choice of words ...

[Gregg]

I stand corrected, some number less than 20. Still, 80 people shot, geez ...

edit: when I said "here" in my previous post I meant "in this situation" ... poor choice of words ...

Thanks for clarifying.

I am probably sensitive and disappointed for losing my confidence in reporting agencies.

I am also influenced by the negative back and forth comments that many of my RJ brethren have argued about in the political threads. News has a major impact on how people respond to life situations. I wish the only agenda was to report the truth.

[Gregg]

Or, what is most likely the case, is they had conflicting police reports on some but were able to confirm that at least 80 were shot, and this is an evolving story.

There’s no ulterior motives.

Doing a Google search for “Chicago Weekend Shootings” turns up many articles from different Chicago outlets reporting “.....at least x people were shot” which is similar to what you’re referring to here.

Thank you for giving me something to think about. It is what I asked for.

I am not sure that there are any news agencies left without ulterior motives.

Does your Google search have date and time on them. That could be a reason for increasing numbers. But the number from the article that I quoted was about the weekend so that number should either be is or isn't.

[revo]

NBC5: "More Than 80 Shot...." - 16 Hours ago
NBC5: "At Least 30 People Injured..." - 17 hours ago
Chicago Sun-Times: "Nineteen people were killed and at least 63 others were shot...." - 9 Hours ago

The Chicago Tribune also reported "At Least 50 Shot..." from Memorial Day weekend coverage.

[chancellor]

How many people were shot?

How many people were killed?

Responsible reporting would give the actual number. This was written to exaggerate the numbers. More than 80 is that one more than 80, 5 more than 80? Nearly 20 means NOT 20.

What is wrong with saying 81 people shot with 18 killed? You know report facts.

I suspect revo and I are pretty much on the same page here, but I'll actually give credit to the Trib in this case. It's highly unlikely they had definitive, hard numbers, but did have an accurate range. I believe they reported the facts best as they had them, and I also they did so with no sensationalization. They could have gone whole hog on this one - think about a headline like SUNDAY BLOODY SUNDAY followed by the opening lines akin to "With the coming of dusk this weekend came the sense of dread and the surety of lead flying through neighborhoods that appeared like war-torn Baghdad. The carnage that began with nightfall was some of the worst the city has seen, with the police unable or unwilling to prevent the near-score of deaths that followed."

But they didn't go there.

EDIT TO ADD: The concept that there are news agencies without agendas has always been a fallacious one. I have no issue with the Trib having an agenda - read their editorial page on a consistent basis, and they're quite open about it.

[Ken]

I'm not clear that I understand the concern with "at least 80 shot".

How could they even prove the negative in the first place? There are numerous ways that something can be missed. Is every shooting reported to a central location that the media access to? I'd never expect a news agency to get every single possible piece of information and they have no way to prove that they have. So "at least" is the responsible thing here. Or am I missing it?

Was it the "nearly 20" instead of 19? That was poor writing, but again leaves some room for incomplete information as well.

What am I missing?

[Gregg]

I'm not clear that I understand the concern with "at least 80 shot".

How could they even prove the negative in the first place? There are numerous ways that something can be missed. Is every shooting reported to a central location that the media access to? I'd never expect a news agency to get every single possible piece of information and they have no way to prove that they have. So "at least" is the responsible thing here. Or am I missing it?

Was it the "nearly 20" instead of 19? That was poor writing, but again leaves some room for incomplete information as well.

What am I missing?

My post #20 in this thread?

Thanks to all who participated. I appreciate the feedback.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Thank you for giving me something to think about. It is what I asked for.

I am not sure that there are any news agencies left without ulterior motives.

Does your Google search have date and time on them. That could be a reason for increasing numbers. But the number from the article that I quoted was about the weekend so that number should either be is or isn't.

I would guess that the quality of our news reporting is probably better than it ever has been. Have you thought that maybe the time in the past when you feel most news agencies didn't have ulterior motives, is either (a) being remembered through rose-colored glasses, or (b) was a time when more news agencies were loathe to make people in authority look bad?

I'm too young to remember Walter Cronkite, but I do remember watching a lot of Peter Jennings and that he was criticized at that time for his "liberal" slant on the news, which seems ridiculous now.

I do agree that journalism is subject to all the same human biases, emotions, agendas, and failings as all other human endeavors. Sometimes I have been on the wrong end of those, so I have no illusions about the perfections of news media. But I would bet that an objective analysis would show that we're better off now than we ever have been. There is just so much more information readily available to people via the Internet, and we have the ability to check sources and cross-check other opinions if we want. In the past that wasn't available, so you had no idea if your newspaper or local TV news was either telling the truth or getting the facts right.