[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: In reference to the highlighted portion of your post, Grojlach...I don't know that it's "typically American" to give only one side of the story. In fact, I find that accusation rather offensive.

It's more of a sarcastic observation made out of frustration than a factual claim, as this isn't exactly the first time recently that US news-articles seriously lacking in the facts-department are posted on Ironworks... Yes, I know slanted reports are found in every single country in the world; I'm not naive. There's just been a few too many of them recently - especially when people actually seem to believe the things that the slanted articles implied - which inspired me to that remark; my apologies however if I've offended anyone with it.

I do, however, think that some of for example the mainstream British media (Guardian, BBC), are fairer in their way of reporting than some of the mainstream US media (CNN). Too often the reports on CNN are one-sided (like was the case with this article for example, which miraculously enough didn't contain some vital information from the Belgian side of the matter - I'm still wondering whether the revised law was actually ever even mentioned in the mainstream US media ). And no, I don't think they're fairer because they're more "leftwinged" or whatever, but because they tend to highlight both sides of the matter a bit better (like these. Mind you, those two articles come from the very *same* source).

I also find it somewhat difficult to believe that a thorough Google Search did not turn up a single article containing any left-wing drivel. However, if the decision you mentioned in a different post regarding "{gasp} gun ownership" was favorable towards the 2nd Amendment...then I feel certain that you could find an equitable amount of "left-wing drivel" railing agianst that decision.

Mind you, this is *not* a specific left vs right debate; there's as much left-winged drivel out there as right-winged. In this particular case however I find it a somewhat distasteful act of journalism when in half of the articles found on Google the only ones actually asked for a response after the overturned verdict were from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (certainly a bastion of unbiasedness ), and in result contain more insults hurled at the court than that they're actually talking about the case or robbery in details. Do people just *want* to be kept in the dark about the real facts so obviously that they've lost even the tiniest bit of interest in the actual story, as not a single news source seems to provide it?
I'm also wondering why the article is ascribed to Reuters, while none of it can be found on the actual site of Reuters; not sure, perhaps they delete all of their news articles after a while or so. Though I have to admit I checked on Snopes to see if it was actually true, due to the lack of articles on the Internet containing something other than incomplete facts (like the one Arvon posted) or awfully slanted opinions (like the one I mentioned before; you can read an example here; and I was referred to that site by a site called "Spin Free News", I kid you not! ).