smutty bloody pictures: ecstasy
when did CNN become such a sensationalist rag? I was a bit miffed last night when reading about the Montreal shooting on an AP site where in the first line they said, "a man wearing a black trenchcoat and a mohawk opened fire in a Montreal school." um, is his appearance that important to mention in the first line of the article? guess it shows that you just can't trust those crazy people who don't dress like everyone else and have hair styles like everyone else... doubt they would have described the shooter's appearance in the first sentence of the article if he was wearing an Abercrombie shirt and had a clean-cut hair cut.
I go to CNN this morning to find out more about this, and again, in the first line of the same article, same thing. slight grrr. and then!!! links to videos... the first one from a guy stupid enough to try to videotape the gunmen on his cell phone, until the gunmen opened fire on this moron. oh wait, but there's more videos, and I'm quoting from the site now: "Watch students flee the scence" and "Watch witnesses describe escaping through pools of blood"
This absolutely sickens me. such sensationalism from a news agency that I thought was a bit more respectable.
But there's hope. Go to the BBC site. That coverage is much more respectful. Thank you BBC for doing a good job in journalism in this case. Yes, they do mention the gunmen's appearance, but it's not in the first sentence of the article, but rather describing the events, as I believe it should be done. no links to videos of people fleeing for their lives. why do I need to go to a UK news site to find responsible reporting on an event that happened in North America?
I go to CNN this morning to find out more about this, and again, in the first line of the same article, same thing. slight grrr. and then!!! links to videos... the first one from a guy stupid enough to try to videotape the gunmen on his cell phone, until the gunmen opened fire on this moron. oh wait, but there's more videos, and I'm quoting from the site now: "Watch students flee the scence" and "Watch witnesses describe escaping through pools of blood"
This absolutely sickens me. such sensationalism from a news agency that I thought was a bit more respectable.
But there's hope. Go to the BBC site. That coverage is much more respectful. Thank you BBC for doing a good job in journalism in this case. Yes, they do mention the gunmen's appearance, but it's not in the first sentence of the article, but rather describing the events, as I believe it should be done. no links to videos of people fleeing for their lives. why do I need to go to a UK news site to find responsible reporting on an event that happened in North America?