7 year old girl murdered in Houston (3 Viewers)

My point is that the media is biased, but not towards liberals, conservatives, white men or Muslims. It is biased towards sensationalism.

That’s partially our fault as a public, and partially the fault of our economic system. Capitalism does some things well, but encoraging media companies to provide accurate information is not one of them.
i go back and forth on this
i mostly believe the media is us - -but it's also, obviously, a propaganda tool that corporation use
as Oye will scream from the canuck wilderness - this is why we need media literacy taught early and often
i would prefer for media news to be more like a good grocery store - -i'm not always going to get the fresh veggies, but i like having them there
but it seems most news now is like McDonald's - -not super great for us and probably more additives than content
 
It's ironic and how sensitive some people get about this are often the same ones clamoring about the over sensitivity of people.

I don't think that people were being overly sensitive, anyone who is honest can acknowledge the narrative that was brewing, complete with a U.S. Congresswoman known for playing the race card jumping into the spotlight. You can't call people "silly" for simply seeing what is plainly in front of them. At least not if you want people to take you seriously.
 
I don't think that people were being overly sensitive, anyone who is honest can acknowledge the narrative that was brewing, complete with a U.S. Congresswoman known for playing the race card jumping into the spotlight. You can't call people "silly" for simply seeing what is plainly in front of them. At least not if you want people to take you seriously.

Plenty of people take me seriously, I really don't worry much about your perception of my opinions. It (the See, it wasn't a white guy!!!) seemed like it was beyond just "acknowledging" something. Not every comment but some. Surviving Saint's early commentary is an easy example of the silliness.

Interestingly enough, the reason this topic got popular had nothing to do with the possibility of racism. It had to do with the dead penalty and a discussion on Islam. That was the reason, so when razor starts making it about the white V black, it shows a level of sensitivity to even considering the subject, when honestly, most people weren't even talking about it. At least not here.
 
i go back and forth on this
i mostly believe the media is us - -but it's also, obviously, a propaganda tool that corporation use
as Oye will scream from the canuck wilderness - this is why we need media literacy taught early and often
i would prefer for media news to be more like a good grocery store - -i'm not always going to get the fresh veggies, but i like having them there
but it seems most news now is like McDonald's - -not super great for us and probably more additives than content

I think a lot of it also has to do with the the different tiers of "news" and the way we get exposed to news.

Pick any story, especially a hot button topic.

Reuters, AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox News (depending on the topic), MSNBC, and NPR will cover it. Then, because they cover it, you'll see it on Brietbart, Salon, The Atlantic (eventually, and in detail), Newsweek, Huffington Post, and dozens upon dozens of other aggregate sites, then you'll see reactions to it on the really terrible left and right sites.

After all that, you see it on Facebook and/or Twitter, especially if you follow your local news social media accounts. If you follow the local Fox, NBC, CBS, and ABC news social media accounts, you'll get that same story, with different leading headlines, 2, 3, or 4 times on your FB scroll. If you dare click on the reactions, you'll exposed to all kinds of stupidity and short sighted reactions.

Then you may hear people talk about it or see it on SR.com or a car enthusiast website.

We have a much harder time unplugging.
 
Pick any story, especially a hot button topic.
.
for the most part yes, but i think the "any" story is a concern as well
even by the time we get to 'any' it's already been vetted and it's almost always a 'fit for consumption' decision vs an important
and we're going to get about 70% carbs, 15% starches, 10% protein, 5% fruit & veg
 
Plenty of people take me seriously, I really don't worry much about your perception of my opinions. It (the See, it wasn't a white guy!!!) seemed like it was beyond just "acknowledging" something. Not every comment but some. Surviving Saint's early commentary is an easy example of the silliness.
I think you're being a little unfair of your characterization of the response. You make it sound as if people were giddy at the fact it wasn't a white guy. But regardless, I think it's fair that some feel a little validated with that fact. And please don't mistake me trying to call that a win. There truly are no winners here. I just want fair assessments made and the full weight of Justice to be brought down upon the guilty, no matter who they may be.
 
I think you're being a little unfair of your characterization of the response. You make it sound as if people were giddy at the fact it wasn't a white guy. But regardless, I think it's fair that some feel a little validated with that fact. And please don't mistake me trying to call that a win. There truly are no winners here. I just want fair assessments made and the full weight of Justice to be brought down upon the guilty, no matter who they may be.
Validated how exactly?
 
Validated how exactly?
Good question. I think a few here, myself included, were uncomfortable with the fact that the racial conclusion was so easy to come by. Not particularly here, but more on a national scale. I get why either you or I may come to that theory, but when it's perpetuated by the media and people in power then I think it can be very damaging. A boy who cried wolf affect so to speak for blacks as well as fueling skepticism for whites. Building that narrative before enough information is gleaned only helps to drive a wedge. I think that's the point many of us were trying to make about calling it a possible hate crime in the beginning and this turn of events kinda validates that opinion. Some just want to brush that off, but I think it's more important than credited here that facts be facts when it comes to the media in these cases and speculation left to you and I.
 
I think you're being a little unfair of your characterization of the response. You make it sound as if people were giddy at the fact it wasn't a white guy. But regardless, I think it's fair that some feel a little validated with that fact. And please don't mistake me trying to call that a win. There truly are no winners here. I just want fair assessments made and the full weight of Justice to be brought down upon the guilty, no matter who they may be.

He took one line out of my 4 paragraph assessment.

And I'm not being fair?
 
If a black suspect randomly shot at white people in traffic, it would be major news.

But @Saint_Ward

But one thing is different. A nationally Known Entity that garners National Press Coverage in everything that they Do... Black Lives Matter.. was quick to jump on the Shooting was Racist bandwagon in the beginning.. Instead of waiting until all evidence had been gathered, reported and the investigation was complete.

As I linked before. NPR said BLM was claiming it was A Racist Motivated killing before a killer was found.

And then this from the New York Times

“Do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, told hundreds of people at a rally last week near the site of the killing.

A United States Congresswoman - Calling it Racially moticated before the facts came out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/us/jazmine-barnes-eric-black-killing.html

and look who was representing the Family of the deceased.

Lee Merritt, a lawyer who represents Jazmine’s family as well as relatives of several African-American victims of high-profile police shootings,

Yes. I am sure that the family was thankful to have legal representation as quickly as possible and at no cost... But this could almost be construed as Ambulance Chasing here. A High Profile lawyer who is gaining national attention due to High Profile Police Shootings taking this case?

That's a Whole lot of High Profile fire power calling this Racially Motivated before any evidence came to light.

and @WhoDatPhan78 , while you and I do not see eye to eye on hardly anything.. I do have to agree with you. That today's journalism is less about quality news reporting and more about sensationalism.
 
Good question. I think a few here, myself included, were uncomfortable with the fact that the racial conclusion was so easy to come by. Not particularly here, but more on a national scale. I get why either you or I may come to that theory, but when it's perpetuated by the media and people in power then I think it can be very damaging. A boy who cried wolf affect so to speak for blacks as well as fueling skepticism for whites. Building that narrative before enough information is gleaned only helps to drive a wedge. I think that's the point many of us were trying to make about calling it a possible hate crime in the beginning and this turn of events kinda validates that opinion. Some just want to brush that off, but I think it's more important than credited here that facts be facts when it comes to the media in these cases and speculation left to you and I.

Why is this logic never extended for suspected Islamic terrorism I wonder?

Ask yourself that seriously, because the situations are rather similar. Yet the response by the same sect of people starkly different.

You have an initial report that pins a white male as the suspect in what seems to be a completely unprovoked act of violence. Why would taking that to an increasingly justifiable hypothesis be problematic? It certainly isn't for suspected Islamic terrorism. Yet in one instance the same people that get mad if we don't call something Islamic terrorism the moment the first round goes off get mad if we offer any sort of public speculation that a crime might be racially motivated on the part of a white person. What does that say about a person? About what they prioritize and empathize with?

And I hate to say it, but as trends go, there is a lot of hate crimes going on these days and at increasing numbers(and by all accounts far more if police reported them accurately). Much like if you heard reports of a brown complected male with a beard driving a truck through a crowd, you might speculate he is an ISIS terrorist based on past precedent, you might reasonably suspect that if a report says a white male rolls up to a parked car of black people and fires numerous shots, there may be a racial component to the motive.

There is this very real trend in America by certain sects of the population that seem to feel that being called a racist , or mislabeling something as racist is a far greater societal problem than the vast amounts of actual interpersonal and structural racism.
 
Joe, what did I say? The flip side would be major news. There isn't a white version of BLM, because no one needs reminding that white lives matter.

The quote from the Congresswoman, what's so wrong about it?

“Do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, told hundreds of people at a rally last week near the site of the killing.

She did NOT say it was one. That it seems to be one. i.e. based on the limited information given, a senseless killing of a black girl by a white man, without a reason like road rage, a robbery, etc other than terrorism what would you assume? The local police just had the wrong suspect because the witness was confused.

Maybe they shouldn't have put it out there so fast if they weren't really sure. If if they really were sure, then they need to think about how strongly they trust witnesses on the scene.

It's odd to have this standard for black folk, or at least BLM specifically. Are you going to be this consistent on every topic? No one should have an opinion until all the facts are out. We shouldn't reason or assume ever on anything.

Don't you dare get upset about NFL players kneeling during the Anthem unless you ask every single one of them why they are doing it, who they talked to, and how thousands of people feel about it. I mean, we are completely interested in having all of the facts before we make a single comment on any topic right?
 
Where people appeal to these sorts of arguments Joe is using signals quite a lot in my experience.

I remember in fact, not that long ago(I.E. less than a week ago), where Joe was basically making post after post wildly assuming about the upbringing and motives of a kid dressing up in drag in order to justify shaming him and his parents. Including assuming that his mom watching drag queen shows made him gay.

It's funny how that selective application of getting outraged at people that don't wait for all the facts works.

Of course in that instance people pushing back on him prompted him to get mad and also without evidence accuse them of wanting to call him a racist. That they were essentially thin skinned for not letting him have his opinion without getting all worked up.

So Joe, why the divergence, what is the justification for thinking it's ok to assume and demand the right to do so without consequence contrasted with this thread where it is a straight up outrage to hypothesize based on initial eye witness testimony?
 
Last edited:
The quote from the Congresswoman, what's so wrong about it?

“Do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Houston Democrat, told hundreds of people at a rally last week near the site of the killing.

She did NOT say it was one. That it seems to be one. i.e. based on the limited information given, a senseless killing of a black girl by a white man, without a reason like road rage, a robbery, etc other than terrorism what would you assume? The local police just had the wrong suspect because the witness was confused.

What???? You are NOT going to try and spin that around that it comes out clean are you?

I don;t know if anyone told you yet. But it wasn't a hate crime.

Therefore US congressional personnel don;t need to go spouting that crap on National Television. Especially when it's false... Therein falls the False Narrative that was referred to. And that is what the Media picked up on and ran with...

That woman was clearly indicating that it was a Racially motivated hate crime and you know it.

and what was her answer when the Press called her on it. "Well nobody took the law into their own hands, so my comment was OK."
 
Last edited:
Me personally, I'm just pointing out how you are literally the embodiment of the very thing you get outraged at.

How you want to confront that fact is up to you.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom