Trouble makerIf you go back to the WTHR Facebook site, you will see where I have rebuked the poll question and called the article(s) sensationalism and fear mongering. They are acting like they don't know what I'm talking about.
Please feel free to back me up here. Thanks!
Trouble maker
If you go back to the WTHR Facebook site, you will see where I have rebuked the poll question and called the article(s) sensationalism and fear mongering. They are acting like they don't know what I'm talking about.
Please feel free to back me up here. Thanks!
No kidding, they dodged your point completely. But that's not surprising, considering how likely it seems that they intentionally crafted the answers in that manner. If it had been an oversight, they probably would have said, "Oops, I see what you mean."
If you go back to the WTHR Facebook site, you will see where I have rebuked the poll question and called the article(s) sensationalism and fear mongering. They are acting like they don't know what I'm talking about.
Please feel free to back me up here. Thanks!
Can you post a link? I'm looking at the page, but see no poll or discussion besides the one from yesterday's article.
Goinggrey; I was just on the FB site and didn't see your post, was it a wall post or a comment. I will back you up but I can't find you.
found it and backed you up. I am finally able to put my research methodologies class to use. And here I was just thinking it was an easy A and a blow off elective.
"I noticed how you conviently split the "Yea" vote on your online poll about the new gun law. Not very fair to the "Yea" voters don't you think? "I agree with it." + "About time. There are too many restrictions on gun owners." were actually greater than the numbers for those who "have safety concerns." I also just looked at your website and the numbers are much more in favor of the "Yea" vote. Are you going to repost those numbers on your broadcast later this evening?"
Did you see their response (same thread) where they asked why I thought the headlines involked fear mongering and sensationalism?
WHTR; said:"We were trying to represent different viewpoints in our poll, but it's always hard to come up with options that are going to fit everyone."
That one? yeah and that is why I responded the way that I did attacking the methodology of the poll and not the options/question.
No, here's my quote: "So, what I'm hearing you say then is that even though your viewers feel differently than previously aired, you will not rerun this newspiece because it contradicts the sensationalism and fear mongering reaction you got to start with. BTW, you should have interviewed some REAL gun owners in your newsbit. How many did you have to go through before you found some that supported your agenda?"
And their response: "Our only agenda here was to inform people about the new law, and we went into some detail in our story (which I'm assuming you either watched or read on our website). How is our story sensational or fear-mongering? We were trying to represent different viewpoints in our poll, but it's always hard to come up with options that are going to fit everyone."
BTW: Here's what the current poll numbers look like:
I agree with it.11%
About time. There are too many restrictions on gun owners.56%
It will make things tougher for police.8%
I have safety concerns.25%
I saw the results which is why I made the second comment about due diligence then duplicated it as a new wall post and referenced you in it (hope you don't mind). BTW: I took "journalistic freedom" and only quoted the necessary part of the reponse so I bolded it in your response to highlight it.
and the poll is now gone!