Quote:
Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan
All of it is valid even though it may conflict. Human perceptions have never been all around consistent. Personally I'd give more weight to a detailed opinion from a real person than a piece from any corporatized media source.
|
The best example I'd ask you to explain where an individual account carries more weight than a media report. What of the NYC Central Park birdwatcher? The black man who was doing nothing more than enjoying his hobby until he encountered a woman who promptly called the police stating she was be harassed by him after he informed her that the dog she was walking was running loose in a park sanctioned leash only area.
It turned out, after the media reported and police investigated the incident that she was nothing more than your garden-variety racist and was later fired from her job on Wall Street. With all the facets surrounding a case like this and others just like it, it appears your basic stance remains victims (in the loosest sense of the word) 'feelies' are/should be the prime arbitrator of if a crime or a sense of the fear of crime has occurred and media accounts have the least credibility if not outright fabrication of the nature of incident reporting.
To be honest, that sounds to me like simply blaming the messenger, but please correct me given the example I just provided.