221
Full tweets with context: https://xcancel.com/hasanthehun/status/1932168427470516520
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
221 points (81.3% liked)
Progressive Politics
2787 readers
691 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is the title of the article you linked. She wasn't shot by a rubber bullet. We saw that she was deliberately targeted and shot with a rubber bullet by a police officer while reporting on the protests, an action both illegal and against LAPD policy. It's not a mistake or a coincidence the title is worded in a way to minimize this incident and the involvement of the police, it's propaganda. And when Bernie implies these protests are violent, which they are not, he gives credibility to this propaganda when he should be unequivocally condemning police violence.
Literally no sane person would ever imagine the headline means a random protestor fired a rubber bullet at her. Everyone knows it was a police officer. The article specifically describes it as a police officer targetting her in particular. Police officers are generally the only people armed with rubber bullets at protests. Of all the mountains of propaganda that are actively flying, this is very much a mole hill.
Bernie called for nonviolent resistance. He did not imply anyone was violent by doing so. Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance. He did not imply anyone was violent by doing so.
I think they're point is that a better headline might be something like "Reporter targeted and shot with rubber bullet by police". That more clearly calls out that it was intentional and not a stray, which most people are probably going to assume.
I understand you; the point is it’s not just grammatical pedantry. Passive language is deliberately used to reduce feelings of culpability. “The suspect died in custody” is less blame pointing than “Police denied suspect treatment for injuries, leading to his death in custody”.
Even if people understand that the police would be the ones with the rubber bullets, there’s an emotional response behind “Police shot at reporter” that you don’t get from “reporter was hit by bullet”.
I'm kind of amazed that we are two years into the Gaza genocide and you still do not know the difference between active and passive media voice.
A "rubber bullet" is a glaringly obvious clue to the perpetrator, and the article actively assigns blame and responsibility.
This is irrelevant. The brains of people only register what they see in the headline.
The perpetrator is the cop.
There shouldn't need to be "clues"