And what is the point you have to make you mentioned?
Have to make? More like want to make. And wanted to wait a bit.
The point has to do with the original link provided as opposed to the other links provided.
Specifically, these links are articles from the literary genre of "journalism"
Wayne police identified the heavily-armed church shooter as Brian Browning, 31.
www.usatoday.com
Members of CrossPointe Community Church are still processing the attempted mass shooting that occurred during their worship service.
www.wxyz.com
A security guard who helped prevent a mass shooting at a church in Wayne over the weekend spoke exclusively to WXYZ. The suspect was armed with a long gun and handgun and wearing a tactical vest when...
www.facebook.com
This link is not. It is political advocacy.
'Christianity is UNDER ATTACK. Anyone saying otherwise is lying'
www.wnd.com
Now the journalism may (and at least one does) contain political themes, especially in the form of quotes but its basic purpose is to tell the who, what, and where of the events. To record the events. The other article will certainly contain factual elements, but its purpose to advocate for a political point of view.
Now I don't want to drag politics into this thread, so I'm not commenting further in that context. This is a religious thread. One where we discuss from various points of views the books of the bible and especially the gospels and the New Testament in general. And literary genres are very relevant to that discussion because how you read something is contextual, it depends on the genre. The gospels are not "journalism" or "biographies" (in a modern sense) but "gospels". They are like the "Christians under attack" link in that the purpose is to advocate a point of view, this time a theological point of view. They contain factual elements, some biographical material, some historical material but they aren't biographies (in a modern sense), they aren't history, and they aren't journalism. They are gospels.
I keep saying in a modern sense because modern biographies generally tell the story of a person at least partially from the perspective of character development. The events that shaped a person into who that person becomes is usually part of the story. And they are focused on the life of the person, not the good news of what happens after their death. Jesus isn't shaped into who he becomes in the gospels, he starts out there for the most part. And while I prefer to focus on what Jesus said and did before the final week, that's me and not so much the new testament.
So, the point is that we should be reading the gospels for what they are, and not as journalism, not as biographies of Jesus, not as early first century history textbooks, etc. Doing so opens up the richer stories that are there. And frees one of trying to pretend that Matthew's and Luke's birth narratives can possibly reconcile. Or that the four gospels' passion stories don't contradict. Because these contradictions are key to reading the story that the writer is presenting. Matthew changed Mark for a reason. Same for Luke. And John isn't interested in the story of the synoptics at all. The gospel writers are each advocating for a particular perspective (Mark - nobody gets it, or is even supposed to get it, Matthew - Jesus is the new Moses, or "super" Moses, Luke - Jesus is a prophet, or the "ultimate" prophet, Acts - by following Jesus Paul's life more or less mirrors Jesus', John - Jesus is God (or on that level) and his here to show it, prove it) . And the literary license needed to tell these various perspectives is to be expected, just like with that political link.