What media bias?
WFAA headline:
61-year-old vigilante speaks out
From the article:
Police released the mug shots of four suspects after authorities said they attempted an armed robbery on a 61-year-old man who turned vigilante.
Three of the suspects were put in jail and the fourth was hospitalized with a gunshot wound he received after Ken said he fought back.
A person who defends themselves is not a vigilante.
Update: Well that was fast, they changed it to armed robbery victim.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
They changed it to “armed robbery victim.”
May 10th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
‘They changed it to “armed robbery victim.”’
Looks like the modern version of the “memory hole”.
May 10th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Good for Ken. Sounds like everyman.
May 10th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I know this is a “brave new online media” thingy, but shouldn’t there be some note of the correction somewhere? I mean, assuming the news source was trying to be ethical or something.
I suppose this is not the level of “Dewey Defeats Truman” or “White Supremacists Riot in Toledo, Ohio”, but still..
I guess stuff like this always makes a good blog post, especially if you grab a screen capture.
May 10th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
The email link to the reporter still opens a blank email with just the word “vigilante” in the subject line.
May 11th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Literacy does not seem to be one of the requirements for employment at a news agency. Just like anyone you hate is now to be referred to as a “Fascist”, they can now be called “vigilantes”. So at least we’re increasing our repertoire of misused words, if not our vocabulary. This must be what is meant by “progressive”.