Jave D wrote:The political impact of the shooting of a US senator is bigger than the shooting of this security guard. This is why the one story received [apparently] more news coverage and more political attention than the other. But of course, you have a personal narrative you're trying to weave here, the old one about the LOL LIBERAL MEDIA, so it's conveniently not important now.
Not really. The guy in Arizona had nothing on him to indicate that he was right-wing, since he wasn't. There was no reason to connect it to, say, Sarah Palin's campaign map as did some people
. Here, the guy had the evidence of a recent controversy on his person.
You'd be satisfied if they did... but you're just as satisfied that they didn't, because either way, you get to be a victim of either the liberal agenda, or the liberal media bias.
No, I'm a little satisfied, but the endgame is to have policies I support put in force. If the media were more supportive of that, I'd be closer to that goal.
Regardless of how silly your claim here is (and it's pretty shockingly silly), it's not relevant to your main argument because of those factors you're ignoring just so you can do a side-by-side comparison of the amount of news coverage in order to communicate your story of persecution by liberal media. In short, you're wrong, and will likely continue to be wrong.
One more time, I'm not comparing the coverage. I'm comparing the effects. One is causing people to distrust the right. The other is failing to cause people to distrust the left. That's the bias, and that's what's unfair.