When it first happened the media framed it with the racially inflammatory headline:
"White cop shoots and kills unarmed black teen"
All technically true information. But what really happened (according to forensic evidence and credible testimony) could also be framed as "Convenience store robber attacks police officer and was killed in the process". It's hard to tell exactly what happened since we only have a few facts and the rest is witness testimony, but it seems the media definitely pre-determined that the framing of the story should be that the cop was the "bad guy" and the victim was the "good guy" and that the whole thing should have a racism angle.
> I've dealt with someone with eBPD who was unable to get through a 45 minute therapy session without contradicting themselves. They also habitually selectively report facts to distort reality... Here's an example with details changed: "Joe drank too much last night and we got in a car crash." Reality, Joe was in the passenger seat, and the driver hit a deer that jumped out in front of them. On confrontation: "I never said Joe drove drunk!"
There was a great example in Germany recently. A Hamas terrorist killed one Israeli and wounded multiple others and was shot himself by Israeli security forces. German State TV opened with "Israel: one Palestinian killed".
Your framing implies the normative claim that convenience store robbers should be shot and killed. This is hotly contested on moral grounds, but on purely material grounds it is hard to justify that claim at all.
The framing does not imply that at all. The framing is "Convenience store robber attacks police officer and was killed in the process". The justification for the shooting is clearly that the robber attacked the police officer, not that he robbed a convenience store.
Does that also warrant shooting and killing? Why do those who take the oath to protect and serve have a seemingly paradoxical right to extinguish life?
If the teen attacked the cop there is a self defense claim, albeit that doesn't stand if the use of force is greater than the threat (eg shooting someone if you think they're unarmed)
Yes, that's another example of squeezing a complicated situation into a soundbite that can be easily understood by those who are terrified by the complexity of the real world.
> The media largely only showed the video of George Floyd being knelt on, not him freaking out about not being able to breathe before that happened.
Are you implying that restricting someone's breathing by kneeling on them would somehow be less bad if that person was already complaining of breathing difficulty?
Of course not. But it makes the whole thing a lot less clear cut in the absence of other information. Would he have died anyways if someone wasn’t kneeling in him due to drugs or other causes? Should they have believed him more or less that he couldn’t breathe when he was on the ground?
I’m not saying it at all excuses their actions, just that the media was pushing a narrative by not including that.
I think going up against Reagan, who had enormous popular support due to being thought to have presided over a strong economy and progress in foreign policy vs. the USSR, did most of the work in sinking Mondale's campaign.
Reagan wasn't popular by default. He was popular because he was a master at debate, charming people, and framing himself as President.
For example, Jimmy Carter never looked Presidential. For one, he encouraged people to call him "Jimmy" rather than "James". For another, he'd wear a sweater when giving speeches to the public.
People liked that Reagan wore a sharp suit and acted (yes, acted) the role of President.
BTW, Obama, Trump, and Biden all were very careful to present themselves while campaigning as Presidential. They all wore sharp, well tailored suits, and took pains to stand up straight. I bet they all got coaching in body language.
US presidents’ suits tend to be generously cut (if not a full “sack” suit) rather than very well tailored. Viewed in this light Trumps suits seem to have been flattering if unstylish.
BTW, Reagan was a master at reframing difficult questions into a joke, thereby disarming their payload. I remember the Democrats at the time complaining in bitter frustration at how adroitly the "Teflon President" did this.
Not to take away from the joke, but it was a televised debate and Reagan was responding to a question from the moderator, one he probably had an inkling was coming -- not an "argument" from Mondale.
Like I said, I was young at the time. Still, one would expect any candidate to offer multiple arguments for voters to consider. If this simple joke really "sank Mondale's campaign" as claimed above, one would wonder just what form that alleged campaign might have taken. It could be that other factors led to the 49-state drubbing, which factors would have decided the matter even in the absence of a particular canned response to a softball from the moderator.
It's not just my opinion that that joke was the turning point. Although Mondale was clearly outmatched by Reagan, that incident pretty much encapsulated why.
Why are these stories so important to us? Upthread we learn that this debate was as staged as any of Hillary's. Anything planned in advance can't have been an actual turning point. USA popular discourse was shockingly dumb in the 1980s, so it's possible that Jodie Foster had already clinched Reagan's reelection a couple of months after his inauguration.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c9d2cf6e6e840c133b9376...
Russell Conjugation is also a powerful tool they often use.
I am firm. [Positive empathy]
You are obstinate. [Neutral to mildly negative empathy]
He/She/It is pigheaded. [Very negative empathy]
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27181