37
votes
Hunter Biden is convicted of all three felonies in federal gun trial
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Jurors will resume deliberations in federal gun case against President Joe Biden's son Hunter
- Published
- Jun 11 2024
- Word count
- 937 words
I don't think anyone should be surprised by the verdict. The jury only deliberated for three hours. Hunter Biden was definitely unfairly targeted, but if it's okay with the Republicans to target the President's son for something that it is estimated 1 in 5 gun owners in America is guilty of, then it definitely seems acceptable to target the former president for any of his crimes.
To be clear, I don't really have a problem with someone as visible as the President's son being held to a higher standard legally, especially on highly visible crimes, but he has definitely been made into a public spectacle in an unfair way.
While this is political targeting and we can argue over the the need for many of the questions on ATF Form 4473, but can we agree not to sensationalize titles here? Especially with statements that are nowhere in the article itself?
I think in circumstances like this it's correct to editorialize. It's like writing "In gigantic lie, Former President Trump lies and falsely claims x (THIS IS A LIE, it is NOT TRUE)" instead of "Former President Trump claims x"
not editorializing right-wing political action is spreading right-wing propaganda
Except Trump is a known, possibly pathological, liar and so editorializing a title about statements he's made is unnecessary, especially here on Tildes.
And this isn't a right-wing rag, it's the AP. Sensationalizing an AP title, especially one without any references in the article and zero sources to back up the claim, is nearly universally unnecessary here on Tildes.
To be clear, I disagree with the AP's stance of not editorializing right-wing political action
I also disagree with this. a) editorializing helps educate users on how to respond to claims made by conservative friends/family, b) if we don't editorialize here then people can say "oh look this progressive site is saying this so it must be ok to say," c) I am 100% sure that more than 1 conservative person will view Tildes between now and the election, and literally anything that can be done to educate them on right-wing propaganda is worthwhile
It's usually okay to de-editorialize headlines (ie. make them more neutral in tone, or remove misleading statements), but that's different than editorializing it ourselves (ie. adding political opinion or spin).
In this example, if the submitter wanted to remove mention of president Biden, that likely would have been seen as acceptable. His son Hunter's actions have little bearing on his presidency, so that can be seen as clickbait. However, the current title goes further by injecting opinion to downplay the situation. That is likely inappropriate for Tildes.
My suggestion would be to use the original title, but to strip Joe Biden's name and only mention those involved.
You disagree with one of the only non-biased, non-partisan news sources having a stance of being non-biased and non-partisan?
Then it appears you and I are going to fundamentally disagree as I don't buy into "editorializing helps educate" as in reality it translates to the same biased/partisan "tell them what to think, not teach them how to think" that should be avoided in the first place.
In the United States in 2024 there is no such thing as non-partisan/unbiased reporting. Either you give context around things that happened or you help to spread the conservative agenda.
It's like that McDonald's lawsuit ages ago where a woman was severely burned from dangerously overheated coffee and McDonald's ran a PR campaign to have her discredited in the public view. A story that says "woman claims McDonald's owes her damages for serving her hot coffee" is technically telling the truth. But without the context that she got third-degree burns and needed significant medical attention and only wanted her medical bills covered you are implicitly taking sides.
So actually, "McDonald's negligence leads to serious injury, company refuses to take any responsibility and is running a smear campaign against her" may sound like it's editorializing and biased, but it's the more accurate headline
Same thing here, but it's a more emotionally charged issue than a cup of coffee in the 90s
The context is in the article. De-editorializing titles is the norm here. Since you're going to adhere to this obvious and basic logical fallacy then this conversation will go no further. Have a good day. I'm changing the title.
No need. I already beat you to it. ;)
I saw you fast fingered brother from another motherland...
I think the problem with the current title ("Hunter Biden, one of sixteen million drug users in America who own firearms...") is that this article doesn't actually address how many Americans simultaneously use drugs and own a firearm.
I mean, it's a good point and I'd like to see the reference, but this title suggests that the AP is a reference for this claim, and that's simply not the case.
Tbf that talking point would've fitted well as a comment. It's not like this place is drowning in spam so it would be seen and would stay at the top if it's well liked.
No thanks, don't need this part of the internet be ruined as well.
I agree, I'm not a big fan of the editorializing here. Not only because it's a bit of an ad populum / strawman, but also because I just don't think it fits here on Tildes. Titles are regularly changed from the exact one used in the linked article, but not usually to include information or arguments that aren't present in the original. I think a better place for editorializing is in the OP's top-level comment; that's where I've always done it and where I've usually seen it.
Some context: one of the reasons banks ask questions about how a bank account will be used, when people could just lie, is so that that the government can get an easy conviction if they need to.
They will tell you it’s a felony if you lie. Nothing happens right away, though.
It occurs to me that strict campaign finance laws can work similarly, as a good way to trip up any politician who isn’t scrupulous about following the law.
I’m not sure it’s a bad thing that famous or powerful people need to be more careful about such things.
Seems like a power easily misused for arbitrary arrests.
Sadly, there's a lot of those. There are plenty of laws that are rarely or never enforced but still on the books, and if you're disruptive to society it can be easy for the powers that be to suddenly remember that it's a crime to drink rootbeer on the south side of town on a Sunday, or whatever.
Edit: So as not to be negative without a proposal for something better; maybe requiring laws to be renewed for another term would help, such that cruft no one would be willing to defend gets winnowed? That might be overly disruptive, or it might end in a blanket renewal without nuance, but it would also mean that unpopular laws went away.
Or maybe rather than a duration before automatic expiration, a required review and re-approval before they could be enforced? No punishment possible without the government having recently put the stamp of approval on a given law?