Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: B.D.F. on September 24, 2017, 05:01:18 PM
-
This will probably get locked, deleted or moved to the arena, and all of that is fine but I still am going to say (type) this anyway:
Has anyone else noticed the blatant double- standard of the mass media in reporting about the perpetrators and victims' races in news events? Specifically, if a white man or white LEO does something, the story always points out 'white man' or 'white police officer......'. But if a black man does the exact same thing, the media is silent on the perpetrator's race? And that this double- standard continues to the victim(s) as well?
This is not a racial post in any way but rather a post about what I clearly see as a national racial issue. I do not believe it is any type of conspiracy per se, but an 'understood' situation whereby mass media reporting follows this general pattern to be 'politically correct' in today's climate.
By the way, I am not asking if anyone thinks this is correct or not as I am quite certain it is correct, merely if anyone else has noticed it also, and especially if anyone else would be bold enough to comment.
This situation has happened yet again today with the unfortunate church violence in TN: nothing was mentioned about the perpetrator's race, and that single, solitary fact made me believe it was likely to be a black person because according to custom, race is never mentioned if the person in question is a person of color, but it is a critical factor in any and all reports if the person is not a person of color. And I am simply getting tired of being spoon fed this very carefully proportioned garbage masquerading as 'The News'. Or perhaps it IS the news but it has a definate, sizeable spin already woven throughout the headline as well as the story before it is ever presented to the public. I would rather see one of two things: either ALWAYS mention the race of the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s) or NEVER mention those things; this selective specification if frankly disturbing, insulting and IMO, obnoxious.
OK, off my soapbox and sending these electrons off to their fate..... not sure if this post needs a little political correctness adjusting or not but that will be up to others.
"I speak the truth, not so much as I would, but as much as I dare, and I dare a little more as I grow older."
- Michel de Montaigne
Brian (white, middle aged male, born and bred in the US, not a perpetrator or a victim of anything of any account whatsoever, and I only include this because it may or may not be important regarding the P.C. status of this, and other, posts)
-
Just another example of our lop-sided biased media reporting.
Bob Skinner
-
I've noted this bias for so long that today I all but expect it from the media...
-
You need to check your privilege, white guy. Only members of the devil white race can be racist and commit hate crimes.
-
It's real, it's not new, in fact it's been going on for decades.
I know of which I speak, I sued the Florida Dept of Corrections in federal court over racial bias on promotions. This was in 1986 to 1991.
So the basics... a seargent promotion, in fact 2 slots filled. One went to a black male officer, the other to a hispanic female. I had been the black officers training officer, and AFTER the promotion I was assigned to teach the female officer how to run confinement... so she could be MY supervisor.
Understand coming into these promotions I had been working as "acting seargent" for 8 months while we were waiting for the positions to be officially filled.
After the promotions happened, I asked a supervisor what I had to do to be promoted. the answer that came back to me was that these promotions were needed to fulfill EEOC requirements. so I got ahold of the dept's EEOC policy and found that they were misapplying the standard. The standard being applied to the promotions was the same being applied to initial hiring, that the new hires should reflect the racial makeup of society by percentage. So in a effort to stay ahead of the game and not answer any questions, minorities that were less qualified were being moved up the ranks just for appearances.
I'm not going to go into how messy the whole thing became, but by the time we went to court (I had been out of doc for 5 years) the primary thrust of the allegations against me was that I am a racist for even bring the issue up. Only a person wanting to suppress minorities would do so... correct? The fact that I said repeatedly that discrimination against any person for their race, gender etc is unacceptable and that you cannot"fix" past injustices to a group by being unjust to another group seemed to fall on deaf ears.
I won my case with the Florida Commission on Human Rights, but lost in federal court. we could have appealed it, but frankly I was tired of fighting and needed to move on with my life. there was a lot of bad times associated with that.
Several years later, the Supreme Court heard a case basically the same as mine for some firemen from NJ who were the victims of the same "reverse discrimination". After that quotas for the EEOC were dismantled because the supreme court determined you cannot try to reverse past injustices perpetuated on one group by discriminating against another group. Imagine that.
So this has been going on for a long time. It actually has a name... "identity politics". Basically that means that the more your group has been the historic victim of discrimination, the more credibility your claim of discrimination has, regardless of the actual fact of the case. So in that case any black person shot by a white police officer has to be innocent, the while officer a racist. Of course the officer was operating under the long standing idea that law enforcement systematically oppressed black people, because as we know, it has happened in the past. If the black person was caught in the act of carjacking, or committing murder, rape whatever, it has no real bearing on the issue, which is a black man being suppressed by a white man.
One more interesting fact... blacks make up about 14% of the population , but about 40% of the prison population is black. That, of course has nothing to do with any actual statistics that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime generally against other blacks, but it HAS to be because the justice system is stacked against them, so their lawyer will always be a chump, whereas a white guy accused of the same crime would get the top Harvard graduate assigned to his case at the public defenders office.
I am not a racist. In fact I recall that the grade school I attended up north was next to an old house reported to have been used in the underground railroad... and we all felt a sense of pride in that. But I can tell you that pretty soon thiose who scream "it's racism" are going to start driving good, non racist folks away from their cause, because we know they're overplaying their hand just to get the upper hand in every situation. and that, actually, was the point made in the OP's post. Steve
-
Yes, he is a black man. And from the Sudan. But they have not mentioned his religion, as far as I know.
-
Has anyone else noticed the blatant double- standard of the mass media in reporting about the perpetrators and victims' races in news events? Specifically, if a white man or white LEO does something, the story always points out 'white man' or 'white police officer......'. But if a black man does the exact same thing, the media is silent on the perpetrator's race? And that this double- standard continues to the victim(s) as well?
Oh, its real and very irritating to those of us who believe in and fight for equality and treat everyone with the same respect and objectivity. So yes, pretty much everyone notices it and somehow it is OK, or at least tolerated.
Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo)
And a bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faolY5_hnIc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faolY5_hnIc)
This is not a racial post in any way but rather a post about what I clearly see as a national racial issue. I do not believe it is any type of conspiracy per se, but an 'understood' situation whereby mass media reporting follows this general pattern to be 'politically correct' in today's climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B0HV_GQut4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B0HV_GQut4)
And since you are talking about double standards in the media...
Asian American
Native American
Arab American
African American
and wait for it...
"White"
Never "European American." How does this fare for equality? I mean, I don't want a "White History" month, but can't we at least use equal terminology?
Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl7Q36V9pg4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl7Q36V9pg4)
And a bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiU20QjKPCo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiU20QjKPCo)
It is apparent that a huge portion of the population don't want everyone to be treated equally but given special treatment, special terms, special reporting, etc. The media pander to it almost continuously. And when that happens, it not only fails those who get special treatment but offends those who don't or those who really want impartiality.
-
The "media" has an agenda that we mere mortals are not privy too and probably would not understand. As a group, they do whatver it takes to steer the country and the world to some place where they want it to be. The underlying issue is not about race, it is about who is in control and who is the subject. Left to our own devices, without the constant bombardment of the "news", most of these perceived problems would go away. It would be good to have an unbiased news reporting system that presented the actual FACTS AND TRUTH ( as Professor Indiana Jones pointed out, FACT and TRUTH are not the same). However, that's not what we have. I'm not sure whose best interests are served by giving us half-truths and outright falsehoods, but it seems that "they" want us in a constant state of turmoil, creating strife where none needs to be.
Recently there was a black woman who was shot and killed here in Seattle, by two SPD officers. She had known mental problems and had had several previous contacts with local LEO's. When the police responded to her 911 call about an intruder, she attacked them with knives. They responded with deadly force. Her family is calling it murder. The media has slanted it several different ways, the most recent is that they "shot her in the back". Well, maybe, if the officers were firing rapidly under severe stress, and she was spinning around after having already been shot in the front. But the way the news is making it sound, it would make you think that she was just standing there facing away from them and they murdered her by "shooting her in the back". The news media wants to stir it up as much as possible, create as much tension and needless friction as they can.
I notice the same sort of slant regarding "motorcycle" accidents. If a bike rider crashes all on his own, it's a "motorcycle" accident. If a car hits a motorcycle, it is STILL called a motorcycle accident, even if the car driver is at fault. Why not call it a CAR accident? What about the car driver?
Since the average American knows so little about the way things actually work, they believe whatever they see on television and in the movies, and whatever crap the news media puts forth reinforces the errors and omissions until the truth is almost impossible to uncover. That's why people believe that AR-15's are machine guns, cars get better mileage with higher octane gas, "news" is truth, and all white people are racists.
-
This situation has happened yet again today with the unfortunate church violence in TN: nothing was mentioned about the perpetrator's race, and that single, solitary fact made me believe it was likely to be a black person because according to custom, race is never mentioned if the person in question is a person of color
Well, it seems that Fox News apparently DOES tell all the details:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/24/deadly-tennessee-church-shooting-sudanese-immigrant-arrested-fbi-launches-civil-rights-investigation.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/24/deadly-tennessee-church-shooting-sudanese-immigrant-arrested-fbi-launches-civil-rights-investigation.html) But to be fair, it seems other sites have updated their info too, finally.
The perpetrator is black, and shot 6 [apparently] white people. And just to drive the Left ultra insane, apparently a white victim fought the perpetrator, and after being hurt, went out and got his own gun and helped end the crisis WITHOUT the death of the perp. Boy, that certainly doesn't fit with their depiction of guns in the hands of GOOD people, does it? And let's take bets on if the perp had legal guns. Well, maybe they can start making up some fake news to explain how it really isn't the perp's fault he did what he did, it must somehow be society...
-
And since you are talking about double standards in the media...
Asian American
Native American
Arab American
African American
You missed out Irish American & Italian American ;)
and wait for it...
"White"
Never "European American." How does this fare for equality?
Nah thats far too generic you need
British American
French American
German American
Spanish American (unless you want to bundle those under Hispanic)
Portuguese American (see Spanish)
etc etc ;)
-
Political Correctness (PC) has become a victim of it's own stupidity
-
I'm not sure I could call myself British American, English American possibly. I think you have have to be born here to have one of those tags. I am a citizen here but based on some rules in GB I could be a citizen there as well. My wife and kids could be English/Scotch (not the drinking variety)/Welsh/Irish American as well as my US ancestors...but not me as they were all born here. I could be a 'sooner' (soon as one or the other).
But really, how far do you go back with that tag? A significant portion of my DNA comes back from England but over 54% comes back Scandinavian and Western Europe (Comes from invasions of the Isles) with just a smidgen of Polynesian (have no clue how that slipped in (easy boys)). So I could be all of those 'xxxxxxxxx' Americans as could most of us here. All of us on the planet, for the most part are Mutts. I identify with English as I was born in England proper. I wonder how that works over there? O.C., Mikey? Do you guys even have that term like we do over here?
As far as the news play on that incident in question I was wondering the same thing because I couldn't tell what was going on either. Even Fox news this morning (Web) isn't talking about the ethnicity of the parishioners shot.
We could be European Americans but I don't like being lumped in with that lot at all. Yes, I'm biased and proud of it.
-
Jm, I was born and raised in the county of Yorkshire, hence I am a Yorkshireman which as any English person will tell you, puts me head and shoulders above the rest :rotflmao: The saying "Ya can allus tell a Yorkshireman, but ya can't tell him much" applies perfectly ;)
It is an interesting question though, as I have lived in various areas of England over the years, 1951 - 1992 Yorkshire, 1992 - 2014 Cumbria (Lake District) and then in North Yorkshire from 2014 -2017 and now I reside in Northern Ireland and that's the interesting bit, because Northern Ireland whilst part of the U.K is not classed as part of Great Britain, for example we now possess N.I driving licences and enjoy many different and usually better benefits from the comparable ones in G.B.
-
I was just wondering from the point of view of something like...."I'm a British Frenchman" as my ancestors came from France kind of thing like what we do over here but over here is a somewhat interesting situation compared to GB as everyone over here is not from here with the exception of the native Indians but even they were immigrants as well at some point.
-
You missed out Irish American & Italian American ;)
Nah thats far too generic you need
British American
French American
German American
Spanish American (unless you want to bundle those under Hispanic)
Portuguese American (see Spanish)
etc etc ;)
No. The main three used are continents, the next main two are just large physical areas, these are not countries. There is no way looking at someone you can know if they have German vs. French vs. Austrian ancestry. But you know they are European American. All of it is silly anyway. What do you call someone who is half White South African and half Native Columbian? "European-English-White-South-Africa-African-Inca-Colombian-South-America-Native-American"?
-
No. The main three used are continents, the next main two are just large physical areas, these are not countries. There is no way looking at someone you can know if they have German vs. French vs. Austrian ancestry. But you know they are European American. All of it is silly anyway. What do you call someone who is half White South African and half Native Columbian? "European-English-White-South-Africa-African-Inca-Colombian-South-America-Native-American"?
Unique :thumbs:
-
And that is the EXACT reason for my post: race is ignored if the perpetrator is black. But race is in the first lines, and almost always in the headlines, if the perpetrator is white and / or if the victim(s) is black.
It is reverse- discrimination and it seems to be all- pervasive, at least with news agencies w/in the US, even including non- US news agencies reporting in the US (BBC for example). It seems to be an unstated rule that all must follow. My own take on it is that apparently racism has new facets to its very definition: mentioning the race of a perpetrator of a crime, if that perpetrator is black is racist, not mentioning the race of a perpetrator who is white is also racist. The new default seems to be that white people cannot be discriminated against, no matter how much they are discriminated against, simply because they are white. The reverse is also true, any mention of race when speaking about anyone who is non- white is racist and discriminatory.
News, by definition, should be as unbiased as possible. But what we seem to have here is 'the tail wagging the dog' in current journalism: instead of simply reporting the news as neutral facts, it is reported only after being massaged to make it P.C., and if need be, some parts are simply left out while other aspects get additional attention or specific mention. It seems that no one is able to stand up to what is perceived as "The right thing to do" and actually do the right thing anymore. I would imagine Edward R. Murrow might have, and I like to think would have, resisted such nonsense but it seems social pressure has pushed most (all?) of journalism to the point where the truth and the whole truth just cannot be stated anymore.
Brian
<snip>
As far as the news play on that incident in question I was wondering the same thing because I couldn't tell what was going on either. Even Fox news this morning (Web) isn't talking about the ethnicity of the parishioners shot.
<snip>
-
I identify as Briish(Welsh) ;)
I'm not sure I could call myself British American, English American possibly. I think you have have to be born here to have one of those tags. I am a citizen here but based on some rules in GB I could be a citizen there as well. My wife and kids could be English/Scotch (not the drinking variety)/Welsh/Irish American as well as my US ancestors...but not me as they were all born here. I could be a 'sooner' (soon as one or the other).
But really, how far do you go back with that tag? A significant portion of my DNA comes back from England but over 54% comes back Scandinavian and Western Europe (Comes from invasions of the Isles) with just a smidgen of Polynesian (have no clue how that slipped in (easy boys)). So I could be all of those 'xxxxxxxxx' Americans as could most of us here. All of us on the planet, for the most part are Mutts. I identify with English as I was born in England proper. I wonder how that works over there? O.C., Mikey? Do you guys even have that term like we do over here?
As far as the news play on that incident in question I was wondering the same thing because I couldn't tell what was going on either. Even Fox news this morning (Web) isn't talking about the ethnicity of the parishioners shot.
We could be European Americans but I don't like being lumped in with that lot at all. Yes, I'm biased and proud of it.
-
:thumbs:
-
Thanks for the input folks, I was hoping it really was as I thought I was seeing it and at least some people noticed. Otherwise it would be like an episode of The Twilight Zone for me.... :-)
And still I cannot find a single headline or news story that states the perpetrator of the recent violence in TN was black nor any that state what race the victims are. And so it goes on.....
Brian
-
Well, maybe the pendulum from the Dept of Justice is starting to swing to the middle... In reading the article it stated that a civil rights violation investigation has been opened. That would be looking into this as a hate crime, and it would not be a hate crime if the victims were black. So I don't know what race the victims were, I assume mostly white based on the area, but they were not black. Steve
-
I identify as Briish(Welsh) ;)
And I identify as "American"
But neither is "race"
-
Well, maybe the pendulum from the Dept of Justice is starting to swing to the middle... In reading the article it stated that a civil rights violation investigation has been opened. That would be looking into this as a hate crime, and it would not be a hate crime if the victims were black.
I noticed that too and thought it interesting. Of course, it isn't just intimidation, it was an attack, so I don't know why it would matter what the motivation is, just that the crime took place.
So I don't know what race the victims were, I assume mostly white based on the area, but they were not black. Steve
Your assumption is correct.
-
And I identify as "American"
But neither is "race"
Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. ... You can have more than one ethnicities but you are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".
So as a "Race" it is possible to identify as French, Portugese etc as there are certain characteristics that they have
Welsh is a race ( of Celtic Origins if you want to be pedantic) whilst my nationality is British.
Your Nationality is American, but what would you describe your racial heritage as?
-
I identify as beige.
-
I do not think that is right Mike, at least not in the US. Or at least not what I learned, back when humans still came in races, which seems to be entirely gone today.
Race is the grouping of humans below the 'species' level; all humans are of the same species but can be of different races. When I was a kid, there were three: Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid, in alphabetical order. I believe another was added before the entire concept became 'non- P.C.' in the U.S. entirely, and it was the Aboriginal peoples (not sure of the name of that race).
I think what you are describing is nationality, which is defined by a combination of national borders as well as linguistic and common heritage (learned heritage, not inherited heritage). For example, Germans and Austrians are different nationalities but generally have the same race, although of course an Asian person born or possibly raised in, say, Germany would still be of German nationality and yet of Mongoloid race.
But the great majority of, say, Dutch and German people are of the same race but different nationalities. Ethnicity becomes a little bit more blurred; I think of it as a matter of how far away one stands (from 1,000 meters, Dutch and Germans <are> the same, but speaking with each one yields a different ethnicity of course).
Just to show you how off- kilter things have become in the US regarding issues such as these, my oldest son (34 yrs. old) told me w/in the last year that 'all humans have identical DNA'. Absolutely amazing that he said that, and he really believed it. So I asked him what he thought the chances of he and his significant other (also American, she is of European extraction as is he) of having an Asian child..... and he stuttered and stammered for a while. Then he realized that his initial statement was just plain wrong, our DNA is different.
None of which makes me or anyone else a racist of course, no more than thinking a Dachshund and a German Shepherd Dog are different makes one hate dogs. But we have moved so far away from anything even remotely potentially offensive to anyone that we cannot even state obvious facts anymore.
Brian (to the best of my knowledge: race, Caucasian. Ethnicity, Western European (mostly). Nationality: American. See sig. line for species information.)
Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. ... You can have more than one ethnicities but you are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".
So as a "Race" it is possible to identify as French, Portugese etc as there are certain characteristics that they have
Welsh is a race ( of Celtic Origins if you want to be pedantic) whilst my nationality is British.
Your Nationality is American, but what would you describe your racial heritage as?
-
Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. ... You can have more than one ethnicities but you are said to have one race, even if it's "mixed race".
My point from before still holds. A country isn't a race or even an ethnicity. Saying "African American", "Asian American", or "European American" is a very broad term, not at all equal with something like "French American" which is extremely narrow (and small).
So as a "Race" it is possible to identify as French, Portugese etc as there are certain characteristics that they have
Yes, but it is also pretty useless for third-parties trying to identify or describe someone based primarily on just a few physical traits. Unless one is some type of scientific super-Sociologist/Biologist, one won't know someone's historical (and certainly not recent) country background by just looking at someone. This is especially true for mixes. Almost everyone is a mix at one point or another and things are mixing faster and faster each generation due to modern transportation, wealth allowing such movement, and the fortunate breakdown of old taboos.
Your Nationality is American, but what would you describe your racial heritage as?
It depends on how far back one goes. Last few hundred years- mixed European of some unknown proportions and locations. Probably British, German, and Dutch; but just a guess (Should I then be "British-German-Dutch-American?"). Several rings on the latter from that, who knows. Most everyone came from somewhere else. Native Americans came from Asia. Asians came from Europe. Britons came from other places in Europe. Everyone from Europe came from Africa. And there have been lots of migrations and movements that overlap and change and lead to some pockets of isolation and others with constant mixing at various points. So perhaps everyone in the USA are "African Americans"? :)
-
Now that right there is true; all Americans are African- Americans, just like all other humans on the planet, because all homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa.
Fun fact: the Neanderthals walked out of Africa before Home Sapiens and for a long time were though to have gone extinct. But through modern DNA analysis we know that is not correct; Neanderthals did not die out, they were 'bred- out' by mixing with a much larger group of Homo Sapiens. The really interesting part is that how much of present day man (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is made up of Neanderthal depends entirely when that race walked out of Eurasia: Caucasian man has between 2% and 4% Neanderthal, Mongoloid man is around 1% and native Africans have NO Neanderthal content at all because they left Africa after Neanderthal was already gone, about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago.
But yeah, all of our ethnicity and historical anchor points depend entirely on when one chooses to fix the time of origin, otherwise "we all" walked out of Africa with one root ancestor.
At least for those who follow the evolution side of things. Not sure how or even if any of this applies to the Intelligent Design school of thought. ??
Brian
<snip>
It depends on how far back one goes. Last few hundred years- mixed European of some unknown proportions and locations. Probably British, German, and Dutch; but just a guess (Should I then be "British-German-Dutch-American?"). Several rings on the latter from that, who knows. Most everyone came from somewhere else. Native Americans came from Asia. Asians came from Europe. Britons came from other places in Europe. Everyone from Europe came from Africa. And there have been lots of migrations and movements that overlap and change and lead to some pockets of isolation and others with constant mixing at various points. So perhaps everyone in the USA are "African Americans"? :)
-
At least for those who follow the evolution side of things. Not sure how or even if any of this applies to the Intelligent Design school of thought. ??
Oh, lots of ways one can fit in the fact of evolution:
God created matter, energy, physics.
God created the universe with the big bang.
God created the beginnings of life/cells/DNA.
All while perhaps knowing how things would generally, or even specifically, eventually work itself out.
Stuff like that. It is easy to make God fit into whatever we discover or learn or hypothesize... such is the nature of God- that realm of which we can't define or prove. And that is fine (works for me, anyway).
Of course, for those who think that God suddenly created modern humans a few tens of thousands of years ago, along with other animals, just "poof" there they are... well, not much fits with that.
Now THAT is topic drift!
-
I identify as beige.
Get with the program, Rhino. Get with the program...
-
This will probably get locked, deleted or moved to the arena, and all of that is fine but I still am going to say (type) this anyway:
Has anyone else noticed the blatant double- standard of the mass media in reporting about the perpetrators and victims' races in news events? )
There is probably a lot of truth in what has been said so far about being P.C. etc etc......but I think that maybe the left leaning media ( which in my opinion doesn't do much fake news {Dan Rather; Brian Williams not withstanding} but definitely slants things by the words they use and the emphasis on certain stories...but that's another thing) had a conscious crisis when it was pointed that they had racial bias when they showed Katrina white survivalist scroungers taking food, and black criminal looters doing the exact same thing as the white survivalists. It's not easy to look in the mirror and see the enemy staring back at you. It may have well been on Fox news too (I don't know as I don't watch it) but it happened a lot in the rest of the media. I don't think they have fully recovered from that, and their persistent embarrassment is effecting their current reporting. ..but then I'm frequently wrong about a lot of things. :-[ ???
-
Marty, I do not recall the incident of which you are referring (Katrina of course, but not the black/white food/looting). Of course, a major reason might be that I very rarely watch the news because it disgusts me so much (sensationalistic, slanted, incomplete, petty, and/or just plain not interesting). Perhaps your wording is confusing me, would you might elaborating about what happened? If they were doing the same thing and both were being reported about, what was the bias?
-
If they were doing the same thing and both were being reported about, what was the bias?
The labels were the bias, the whites were labeled survivors (i.e. tough, tenacious), the blacks were looters (i.e. thieves and criminals).
Like I said, I don't know if Fox news did it as well, but there were several instances of it called out in the mainstream media at the time.
If I recall correctly it was repeated by several mainstream news outlets just the same way, and none of them changed the captions or even questioned them.
Again, I could be wrong, but I think they are still embarrassed that they didn't catch it and simply accepted it and passed it on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/business/whos-a-looter-in-storms-aftermath-pictures-kick-up-a-different.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/business/whos-a-looter-in-storms-aftermath-pictures-kick-up-a-different.html)
http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/looters.asp (http://www.snopes.com/katrina/photos/looters.asp)
To be clear, (I hope?) I'm agreeing with what Brian said, I was just offering what I thought was another factor in the why of how things are being currently reported.
-
Is this the pic you're talking about?....
-
The labels were the bias, the whites were labeled survivors (i.e. tough, tenacious), the blacks were looters (i.e. thieves and criminals).
Oh! OK. Yeah, that would be wrong to use different labels. Both were stealing to survive. During a crisis, "looting" to me is different, a far worse crime because it is stealing but not for survival (things like TV's and computers) in a time of crisis. Thanks for the additional information.
-
Is this the pic you're talking about?....
(http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22840.0;attach=28724;image)
Ah yes the old days, when it was much easier to recognize faked photos and fake news.
Not related to the threads topic directly, but I think how the media and the public take note of whether the President attends
disaster sites is fairly silly. Their presence on scene is all just for show, whether in the air looking down (Bush Jr.) or on site
like Trump....why does it matter?...nothing gets done differently other than local police now have one additional task to perform.
Looking forward to the day when a candidate says " If I'm elected, I promise not to show up at a disaster site for photo ops, but rather
I do plan on picking the right people for the job to report back to me and take charge of the situation, and to fire them if they can't perform.
I really think photo ops are ridiculous and simply take away from the work at hand. Like the yearly pardoning of the turkeys at Thanksgiving,
lighting Christmas trees, sitting in uncomfortable chairs while shaking hands in front of the cameras etc. Just cut out all the BS and do the job.
I guess more importantly, I hope there comes a day when the public recognizes that such an attitude would be better than continuing the BS
photo ops. Doubtful in my lifetime, with constant tweeting, selfies, facebook photos showing every little mundane detail of peoples lives (i.e.
I made cookies today, there's corn in my poop, etc) it would seem we are headed for even more BS .
OK, I should get out of this thread before I end up in the arena, where I don't want to be. Thanks for listening ...er... reading.
-
The more they keep it up, the further it divides us. I'm not sure we'll recover from this. If you're so different, and need such special treatment, find it elsewhere. I'm done playing this game. ::)
-
My friend used to date an African-American girl. She was white South African who is now a US citizen. That must really confuse people when reviewing an application.