I'm watching TV and I thought of something.
When there's a story with a huge controversy, news stations report their findings and have it blasted all over the country. Sometimes they don't need to spread it all over the world but they do it anyway. As we might all know, the media tells only a part of the story and hides details that it does not want people to know. With that said, if they wanted people to think that a suspect is guilty even when he's proven innocent in court and people start a riot, do you think they could be responsible? I feel like they could be taking advantage of the fact that most people will only see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe.
People who only watch TV and read things on the internet will believe what they hear, what they read, and what they see. None of them were actually at the scene where things happened, so there's no way for them to know the truth. If the media wanted them to get all worked up and mad at a suspect that was later found to be innocent, it could get a lot of people mad and get them to start a riot. What do you guys think?