RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: GoP's LAMSM Theory, Liberal Agenda of the Mainstream Media?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,06:17   

Since the "Will a "Gay Gene" Refute Evolution?" discussion – which had morphed into a gay marriage discussion - got sidetracked by Ghost of Paley's obsession with the supposed leftward bias of the mainstream media, think of this thread as a budding off of the media discussion into a separate thread. A speciation event, if you will.

A quick recap. The GhostMan – and correct me if I misstate this - contends that the U.S. media have a liberal “multicultural” agenda, and that the reporting of “hate” crimes is filtered in such a way as to give an inflated impression of majority on minority crimes. (Originally straight on gay, but the GhostMan segued into racial incidents – apparently seeing these as part of the same media anti-majoritarian agenda). In support of this view, he listed (April 25 2006, 14:29) 12 news items - melodramatically labeled “Exhibits” A through L – signing off with
Quote
Oh, this is nothing. I just wanted to give you a little sample for now......
I’m inclined to agree: the list really did nothing to make his case. And if it’s just a “sample” of the “more” he promised, he should not waste his – and our – time.

I pointed out that his list of horrors ignored by the media was culled from, ahem, media reports. But, he protested, those were merely locally reported stories:
Quote
Let's get one thing straight from the start. Local coverage does little for people who don't live in the areas where the crime takes place. As a citizen, I want to be informed about major events in the whole nation, because this influences my political and social choices. So the difference does count.
I.e. “exhibits A-L” should have received national attention –like the Mathew Shepard story, and the reason for the difference in treatment is – you guessed it – the liberal agenda of the mainstream medium. (On a side note, I think Ghosty can be assured that his “political and social choices” are as safe from factual input anyway as are his "thoughts" on evolution. Would his choices lean any further rightward if the press consisted entirely of Fox News and clones thereof?)

I went through (April 25 2006, 23: 03) all 12 of his horrors. I stipulated at the outset that they were, indeed, all horrible. I proposed, though, that their lesser notoriety relative to the Mathew Shepard and James Byrd incidents reflected (a) the fact that the bigotry involved in those two stories was an important component of their newsworthiness AND the fact that most of them were, well, less spectacularly horrible than those two stories. (Please note the emphasized words; let’s not get sidetracked, yet again, by all-or-none, “either it’s the Manson murders or it’s jay-walking” caricatures). While the Shepard and Byrd incidents involved spectacularly brutal, vicious, hateful torture/murders, most (9/12) of Ghosty’s incidents did not involve killings. I pointed out the national press – and the national attention span – can’t deal with more than a very small fraction of them.

A little arithmetic. There are about 300,000,000 people in the country. The homicide rate is about 8x10^-5 per year. That works out to about 66 murders every day. (Note: All of them are horrible.)  I don’t think anyone would quibble with an estimate that criminally nasty hateful incidents of the order of the nonfatal ones on Ghosty’s list occur at least 10 times as frequently. That’s more than 600 such incidents every day. Today’s New York Times had 22 stories in its “National” section. Most of them dealt with the doings of the President, Congress, stories with economic impact… only a couple of them had to do with crime of any sort. (And, no, I didn’t choose the NYTimes because it’s a left-wing rag intent on distracting its readers from the real news of the War on White Christians. The Columbus Dispatch had only 23 articles covering national and international news.)

Well, according to the GhostMan, my challenge to the evidence supporting his “liberal agenda of the mainstream media” theory was unpersuasive:
Quote
Russell, I'll have to deal with your pathetic rebuttal later
I was, of course, crestfallen, but I figured our vaporous friend was either (a) doing the Disdainful False Confidence display characteristic of his species (where bluster and bravado substitute for data and logic) or (b) he would bring something new to the discussion we hadn’t considered.

Alas, it turns out to be (a). The Insubstantial One “destroyed” my case with his eventual comment (April 26 2006, 20:45). Exhibit A: [I had pointed out, after stipulating that all of the “exhibits, A-L” were indeed deplorable, that this particular story didn’t quite rate national news, in light of the limitations outlined above. Ghosty implied that I was quoting selectively to downplay the seriousness of the crime:]
Quote
(GoP: ) Let's read a little more, shall we? All emphases are mine. [quote]"Just a whole bunch of people rushed the car. I was thinking 20 girls; my husband said more like 30," said Michelle Essig, who was driving to the hospital when the people stormed her car. "They opened up my car door and started punching my friend, who just had a C-section three weeks ago..."
Of course, that’s newsworthy because the mob in question had undoubtedly done their research and had known that the friend in question had had a C-section three weeks before.
Quote
..."Essig said she attempted to escape the mob.
"They shook the car, they were jumping on the windows. There was a guy on the roof of my car," Essig said. "They tried to pull me out of the vehicle, that's when I gassed it and floored it. They continued to assault my vehicle."
She said the incident was unprovoked, but she has one theory about why it happened.
"I took great offense to the stuff they were yelling. It seemed to be a racially-motivated thing," Essig said.
"'You white b's, you racist b's.' I don't remember everything -- I was caught up in the moment," said Sharon Roffitt, who was in the car when it was attacked. "My window was down. They were swinging at me and hit me."
Whatever the motivation was, witnesses said the attack escalated fast.
"They were shaking this car. It's hard to shake, but the group could have rolled it over," witness Russell Anderson said.
Essig called 911 after the attack, but she could not give a good description of any particular person in the crowd who rushed her car -- only that many of the attackers were black and that they were wearing green.
(GoP again: )
Quote
 What would have happened to them if they hadn't escaped? The mob was attempting to beat them and drag them out of the car. Some "contretemps"!
Now, I repeat: unfortunate, deplorable, illustrative of brutish, hateful, racially charged nastiness? – yes. National news? – no. The objects of the mob’s ire call it “unprovoked”. Well… “uncalled for” perhaps; but not completely out of the blue. The incident followed what I characterized as a “traffic contretemps”:
Quote
KMBC's Chris Nagus reported that two cars with two different couples were on the way to Children's Mercy Hospital when another car cut between them. One of the drivers asked the cutting driver not to block them. Then, things got out of control when a mob came out of nowhere, Nagus reported.
But then Ghost more than implies that I had called the whole mob scene a “contretemps” – when clearly I was referring to the obnoxious driving behavior that had led up to the mob scene. Now, is Ghost being intentionally deceitful here, or just not reading very carefully? Only Ghost knows for sure. But if the latter, is he really ready for the >100-fold increase in reading load he seems to be demanding from his daily national police blotter? (See the arithmetic interlude, above).

OK. At this point, the Ghost Guy skipped over to Exhibit D. I had pointed out that the scene in question, involving a mob of Hawaiian natives menacing some white people, was – though, again, not pretty -  not the stuff of national news, and may have been as much alcohol-fueled as hate-fueled.

A vigilant and indignant Ghost, exercising his on-again off-again attention skills, pointed out:
Quote
You snipped out the previous sentence. Here it is:

Quote
Kai Dechape said yesterday that he heard one attacker say, "Any f..... haoles want to die?"

Know what a "haole" is?
Why, yes, I do. For the benefit of readers who might not know, it’s a pejorative native Hawaiian term for white people. Sort of like “cracker”, I guess. But – again – someone involved in a (nonfatal – sure: nasty, deplorable, criminal, etc.  - but apparently not resulting in serious injuries) incident saying that he heard threatening abusive language… it’s just a few ticks shy of the Mathew Shepard or James Byrd horrors.

Finally, Ghost pleads for a little “balance” in reporting, citing an item from that model of journalistic balance, David Horowitz's e-zine, and finished up with another lurid vicious horrible grisly terrible deplorable sickening incident involving black criminals and (presumably) white victims. A story in which the criminals were arrested and charged with “second-degree lynching”, but apparently Ghost and – not coincidentally – Fox News is outraged because
Quote
local prosecutor David Schwacke commented, "We haven't been able to establish hate as a motive."
.Now I have a few things to say about this. First, and most importantly, horrible vicious etc. etc. things happen. They happen way too often. But reporting one of them – or even lists of them – culled by idealogues like David Horowitz (or the RightWing Roundup, or whatever) does absolutely nothing toward demonstrating that the media is selectively exaggerating anti-minority, or ignoring anti-majority, hate crimes.

Second, this incident may indeed have been a “hate crime”. But. As the prosecutor noted, the fact that the criminals were of one race, and the victims were (I guess) of another, is not enough for him to make – let alone prove – the case that it is.  

Finally, I read in Ghost’s parting shot:
Quote
Does this meet your level of brutality?
an insinuation that I – or anyone else who thinks his LAMSM theory is as unfounded and, frankly, ridiculous as his view of evolution – am selectively insensitive to brutality depending on the political correctness of the victim/perpetrator minority/majority identities. I find that way beyond offensive. If I’ve read that wrong, I’d be interested to learn what the purpose of the question really was.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,07:38   

Some grist for Ghost's mill here today:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/27/texas.attack.ap/index.html

Quote
White teens accused of brutal racist attack

Hispanic boy left for dead

SPRING, Texas (AP) -- Two white teenagers severely beat and sodomized a 16-year-old Hispanic boy who they believed had tried to kiss a 12-year-old white girl at a party, authorities said.

The attackers forced the boy out of the house party, beat him and sodomized him with a metal pipe, shouting epithets "associated with being Hispanic," said Lt. John Martin with the Harris County Sheriff's Department.

They then poured bleach over the boy, apparently to destroy DNA evidence and left him for dead, authorities said. He wasn't discovered until Sunday, a day after the attack.

The victim, who was not identified, suffered severe internal injuries and remained in critical condition Thursday.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:43   

Russell:

First of all, thanks for starting the new thread. I agree with everyone that it needed to be done.

Second, I appreciate your rebuttal, and I plan to respond to it. However, as my last post stated, I'm not finished replying to your original response, so I'm going to copy and paste the original post, merge it with the rest of my reply, and then deal with your counterobjections. So feel free to add more if you wish, but don't expect anything until later tonight.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,08:46   

That's all right, we don't expect anything from you until later next year.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,09:18   

Quote
as my last post stated, I'm not finished replying to your original response
You mean the one from two days ago? One can only imagine how much time and effort you might have expended had it risen above the level of "pathetic".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,11:59   

"I, like, know for a fact that atheists lynch christians and homosexuals attack straights and blacks attack whites, like, all the time. In fact, atheists, liberals, gays and blacks do these violent attacks far more than any other groups. They're just not reported because of all the atheists, liberals, negros, and homos working in the media. So the fact that I have no evidence at all to back up this assertion, and can point to no more than a few isolated cases certainly doesn't matter! My conclusion is that the media should immediately quit reporting cases that make me politically uncomfortable."

Please. Just go home.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,12:31   

Quote
That's all right, we don't expect anything from you until later next year.
I don't expect anything from him ever. His mouth has written checks his brain can't cash.

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,12:42   

Gotta figure.
I mean, they close your bank account when you die, don't they?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,13:49   

Arden Chatfield and Stevestory:

I don't mind if you post here, even if it's just to troll/insult me. But I do wonder why you bother. I mean, stevestory has made it clear that he doesn't want me "trashing" up his threads, and ordered me to GTFO of a couple of them (and yes, I obeyed). Yet here he is, returning the compliment. Why? Nobody's being forced to read this thread; in fact, it was created to make it easier to avoid unpleasant truths. So why do you care? Could it be that both of you are.....troubled by these facts, and wish to suppress them? I wonder if the moderator's ears are still ringing from listening to your sniveling. "For the luvva Gawd, won't you please shut this guy up?!!!!"  ;)  :D  :D  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,14:13   

Russell:
Quote
Quote  
Once again, you were the one who demanded proof that the MSM quashes stories. When I supplied some, you said it wasn't "enough", the sources were "biased", the stories "too old".
You're making stuff up, GhostMan, and you don't even seem to know it. Now, if these stories were "quashed", how do you know about them? You're just unhappy that they got less attention than other stories. What do you want? Affirmative action for news stories?

Let's get one thing straight from the start. Local coverage does little for people who don't live in the areas where the crime takes place. As a citizen, I want to be informed about major events in the whole nation, because this influences my political and social choices. So the difference does count.
Quote
But I suspect that the reason that most of these are not nationally notorious has something to do with the fact that most of them are just not as lurid, sadistic, or fatal as stories that are.

And you would be dreadfully, painfully, tragically wrong. As I'll show later.
Quote
Exhibit A.Quote  
Essig called 911 after the attack, but she could not give a good description of any particular person in the crowd who rushed her car -- only that many of the attackers were black and that they were wearing green.
Yep. A mob - some fraction of which is apparently black - menaces occupants of a car involved in some kind of traffic contretemps. Heavens! I imagine that, once this scourge of a liberal press is removed, kids will be reading about this in history books chronicling the twentieth century.

Let's read a little more, shall we? All emphases are mine.
Quote
"Just a whole bunch of people rushed the car. I was thinking 20 girls; my husband said more like 30," said Michelle Essig, who was driving to the hospital when the people stormed her car. "They opened up my car door and started punching my friend, who just had a C-section three weeks ago."


Essig said she attempted to escape the mob.

"They shook the car, they were jumping on the windows. There was a guy on the roof of my car," Essig said. "They tried to pull me out of the vehicle, that's when I gassed it and floored it. They continued to assault my vehicle."

She said the incident was unprovoked, but she has one theory about why it happened.

"I took great offense to the stuff they were yelling. It seemed to be a racially-motivated thing," Essig said.

"'You white b's, you racist b's.' I don't remember everything -- I was caught up in the moment," said Sharon Roffitt, who was in the car when it was attacked. "My window was down. They were swinging at me and hit me."


Whatever the motivation was, witnesses said the attack escalated fast.

"They were shaking this car. It's hard to shake, but the group could have rolled it over," witness Russell Anderson said.

Essig called 911 after the attack, but she could not give a good description of any particular person in the crowd who rushed her car -- only that many of the attackers were black and that they were wearing green.


What would have happened to them if they hadn't escaped? The mob was attempting to beat them and drag them out of the car. Some "contretemps"!
Quote
Exhibit DQuote  
"I think they would have attacked anyone with white skin," Dechape, 18, told the Star-Bulletin.

But two high-ranking police officers expressed doubt that race motivated the attack. "That's the first time I've heard that," said Assistant Chief Thomas Hickcox.

Capt. Robert Hickcox, the assistant chief's brother, also said he doubted a racial motivation, suggesting instead that alcohol led to the alleged attack.
Hmmm. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between a racist mob and a bunch of drunks. You're right! CNN should have been all over this one.

You snipped out the previous sentence. Here it is:
Quote
Kai Dechape said yesterday that he heard one attacker say, "Any f..... haoles want to die?"

Know what a "haole" is?
Quote
Well, now. Here's an actual murder. But guess what? There are dozens of murders in the country every day. All of them are horrible. A lot of them involving crazies, like this guy. Do you think every one of them involving a white murderer and a nonwhite victim is national news?

No. But a little balance would be nice. Perhaps the ratio of stories should roughly match the ratio of actual crimes?
Quote
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. Yet although blackperpetrated interracial crimes outnumbered whiteperpetrated interracial crimes by a ratio of about 7.2 to 1, the official hatecrime statistics showed white offenders outnumbering black offenders by a 4 to 1 margin. Put another way, about 1 out of every 45 whiteonblack attacks is classified as a hate crime, while the corresponding fraction for blackonwhite attacks is an astounding 1 out of 1,254.

Including this one:
Quote
For instance, in October 1999, a white man named Troy Knapp was attacked by a mob of black men wielding pipes and trash cans, while riding his bike with a companion in Charleston, SC. Knapp was beaten so severely that part of his skull and brain had to be removed, leaving him barely functional.

Seventeen suspects were arrested and charged with seconddegree lynching. However, local prosecutor David Schwacke commented, "We haven't been able to establish hate as a motive."

According to a Fox News report, Schwacke, "acknowledged that if it had been 17 white suspects and two black victims, hate would more likely be considered a motive." The report went on to note that, "Federal hatecrime law could apply in this case, but seven months after the incident the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina is not even considering charges."

Does this meet your level of brutality?

OK, I'm running out of time, and since many people are complaining about me hijacking this topic, I'll move the rest of my rebuttal to its own thread. But don't worry - plenty more to come.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,14:49   

Are we in re-runs? I could have sworn I've seen this episode before.

As in, Comment to "Will a Gay Gene refute evolution" comment posted April 26 2006,20:45

Well, maybe GoP is onto something. Since he just keeps posting the same suggestion of an argument over and over, why not just skip the charade of rephrasing it? Why not just paste exactly the same long screed, repeatedly? Accomplishes the same goal, AND saves a lot of time!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,15:00   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 27 2006,18:49)
Arden Chatfield and Stevestory:

I don't mind if you post here, even if it's just to troll/insult me. But I do wonder why you bother. I mean, stevestory has made it clear that he doesn't want me "trashing" up his threads, and ordered me to GTFO of a couple of them (and yes, I obeyed). Yet here he is, returning the compliment. Why? Nobody's being forced to read this thread; in fact, it was created to make it easier to avoid unpleasant truths. So why do you care? Could it be that both of you are.....troubled by these facts, and wish to suppress them? I wonder if the moderator's ears are still ringing from listening to your sniveling. "For the luvva Gawd, won't you please shut this guy up?!!!!"  ;)  :D  :D  :D

The rules of staying 'on topic' are rather lax here, far more so than those at PT. This is a place where people come, make big statements, and get argued with. That's what ATBC was DESIGNED for. Haven't you been paying attention? You'd rather we all "avoid unpleasant truths"?

As for the moderator wanting us to shut up and not trash this thread, why not ask him?

PS: I'm not "troubled by these facts", since they're not facts. Easy call there.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,15:01   

Quote
Well, maybe GoP is onto something. Since he just keeps posting the same suggestion of an argument over and over, why not just skip the charade of rephrasing it? Why not just paste exactly the same long screed, repeatedly? Accomplishes the same goal, AND saves a lot of time!


It's the mark of an idiot savant, but without the savant part.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,15:37   

Quote
Now, just in case there's any confusion - I'm not a big fan of any of these religions. Call me an anti-religious bigot if you will, but I think religious fundamentalism is one of the scourges of humanity. So I think this should have made national news. And I hope it did. In Australia. Where it happened.

But then why did the New York Times deign to cover the Cronulla riots? They obviously didn't give a toss about the systematic Muslim intimidation that led to this crude, violent "contretemps". Or concern themselves with the riot I mentioned in the last post (you know, the one that actually happened in Amurica).
Quote
Exhibit HQuote  
...the same girl was back - with a box cutter - threatening to kill Alexis. On the ride home after that incident, Jacob displayed a large bruise on his arm from being shoved to the ground and called a "stupid white boy."
Yeah. It's a darn shame. Kids can be pretty barbaric. But again... if the Mathew Shepard story is worth, say, 1000 "horror units", how many should this one be assigned?

Notice that our friend snips around the systematic racial bullying:
Quote
From the beginning, it was uncomfortable. Both children were taunted with racial slurs, particularly Alexis. The Sweeneys tried to make this a life lesson, coaching their kids to respond appropriately. They advised the children to report any threats or poor treatment to teachers, assuming the adults were addressing the problems. And they prayed their kids were simply learning the uncomfortable truth that life can be tough. But the incidents didn't stop, despite a lot of back-and-forth with the school. The kids kept their grades up, but they got pretty quiet.

In mid-March, matters came to a head during an after-school program. Alexis was alone in a bathroom when she was threatened by three other girls. Jessica went to the principal, who brought the ringleader in and made her apologize. Days later, the same girl was back - with a box cutter - threatening to kill Alexis. On the ride home after that incident, Jacob displayed a large bruise on his arm from being shoved to the ground and called a "stupid white boy."

But this is nothing new for liberals. For example, the media widely distributed an AP wire story that covered the systematic harassment of Asian students at a Brooklyn high school. This story contained this interesting passage:
Quote
In the last five years, Census data show, Asians mostly Chinese have grown from 5 percent to nearly 10 percent of Brooklyn residents. In the Bensonhurst neighborhood, historically home to Italian and Jewish families, more than 20 percent of residents now are Asian. Those changes have escalated ethnic tension on campuses such as Lafayette High, according to Khin Mai Aung, staff attorney at the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is advocating for Lafayette students.

Wow, those Italian and Jewish meanies, whaling the #### out of those poor Chinese kids! In fact this is the only mention of the community's racial makeup - outside of the Asian victims, of course. But a little checking reveals a different picture:
Quote
Black, non-Hispanic 45% 20%
Hispanic 26% 20%
Asian/Pacific Islander 19% 7%
White, non-Hispanic 10% 53%
American Indian <1% <1%
(the first percentage is the school percentage; the second, the state's).

Now this search took me all of fifteen minutes, but I guess it's understandable that the media didn't have the time when there's all these hate crimes to suppress.
Quote
Exhibit IQuote  
The men started beating him and struck his passenger after she exited the car, according to police. Fliers with racist epithets against whites were also found on car windshields and utility poles in Greensburg.  
...the men then chained the woman to a fence, beat her senseless and left her to die as her swollen brain herniated through the base of her skull. Nah. I made that last part up. But you know, if that had happened, I bet it would have made the nightly news.

Remember this comment, because it's going to haunt our author later.......
Quote
Not sure what this one's all about. Is the mob one race and the victim another? I don't know. In any case, the report was on the local CBS nightly news. If the worker had not managed to get up and walk back to his cart, perhaps we would have heard more about it. But like I say, with dozens of lethal crimes in the country every day, there's a bit of competition for news coverage.

See, the way it works is, there's a little blue line that you move your cursor over. If you click your mouse, up pops a new window with a cool video. Check the upper left-hand corner. I'll let the viewer make up his own mind about the news-worthiness of the story.

[That's all for now. Don't worry Russell, I've saved my heavy hitters for last ......the fun's just starting!]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,17:30   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 27 2006,20:37)
But then why did the New York Times deign to cover the Cronulla riots? They obviously didn't give a toss about the systematic Muslim intimidation etc. etc. etc.

Okay, Bill, you've loaded up this thread with a lot of cool quotes. But what do they prove? Obviously they can't prove the media doesn't report any stories of minority-on-majority violence, or you'd have no evidence to speak of. Presumably you think the media doesn't report enough min-on-maj violence, but I'm not sure how you'd go about proving your point. Do you have a Lexis-Nexis account? Because if not, you're not going to convince anyone of the amount of reporting on the issue just by doing Google Searches, because Google searches by their very nature aren't an accurate presentation of how many stories are actually out there.

But even if you could prove that the media underreport min-on-maj violence, where would that get you? That the media is biased in one direction or another? That's hardly news. Is there some greater point you'd like to make here? That there's more minority-instigated violence than people think there is? What should people do with that knowledge? Be more afraid of minorities than they already are?

I'm not sure you've put your finger on a massive social problem here, Bill.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
UnMark



Posts: 97
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,17:30   

Perhaps it's because I haven't followed that "Gay Gene" thread that I my understanding here is lax, but can anyone tell me what the #### GoP is trying to argue?  It looks like only a long whine about how unfair he things the media is wrt reporting crimes.  I like to think that I'm a fairly smart person, but I'm utterly msytified here.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2006,18:35   

Quote
But then why did the New York Times deign to cover the Cronulla riots? They obviously didn't give a toss about the systematic Muslim intimidation that led to this crude, violent "contretemps". Or concern themselves with the riot I mentioned in the last post (you know, the one that actually happened in Amurica).
I'm sorry. Did you mention a riot that happened in "Amurica" on the scale of
Quote
thousands of drunken white youths attacked anyone they believed was of Arab descent.
I may have missed that. Or did you miss my point about how, space being limited, newspapers necessarily have to make judgment calls, for instance between a domestic riot on the scale of tens vs. a foreign riot on the scale of thousands? For instance.
Quote
Notice that our friend snips around the systematic racial bullying:
I "snipped" because I don't want each post to double the length of the previous one. But, in case it wasn't clear, I stipulated that all these incidents were, indeed, ugly. Further, I stipulate that they represent racial bigotry. Now, if I try to trim the verbiage, it's to try and make my point as clear and concise as possible. That point is NOT, I repeat, NOT that these incidents were admirable, tolerable or excusable (GoP: please initialize this box to indicate that you have read and understood: [] )  My point is that that there are differences in enormity between the incidents that do get national attention, and those that don't, and that these differences in scale are a more credible explanation for differential coverage than your LAMSM theory.

Now your AP story about harrassment of Asian kids in a Bensonhurst high school surprised me. Well, no. The harrassment didn't surprise me, but your racial stats did. You see, I lived in Brooklyn for 8 years, till 1996. And, when passing through the Bensonhurst neighborhood, I never saw a black face. Does the name Yusuf Hawkins mean anything to you? You seem to be a whiz a Googling; why don't look it up?
This sounds more like the Bensonhurst I remember:
Quote
Black people? No. They’d never come in here," says Jessica S., 18. "In here we all know each other and we’re all from the same neighborhood," meaning Bensonhurst. "If a black kid came in here, he would probably leave right away because the guys would abuse him."
How a Bensonhurst high school winds up with this large a black population is a puzzle to me. But if your point is that the AP is trying to hide the "fact" that it's overwhelmingly nonwhites that beat up on other kids, I can assure you, that is not the case. Just ask Yusuf Hawkins. Oh. That's right. You can't. He's dead.
Quote
If you click your mouse, up pops a new window with a cool video. Check the upper left-hand corner. I'll let the viewer make up his own mind about the news-worthiness of the story.
Hmmm. I wonder if there's some creative way I can phrase this that makes it any more clear...These are nasty, ugly, deplorable, unforgivable, inexcusable actions, and the perpetrators appear to be thoroughly despicable specimens of humanity. Newsworthy? You bet! That's probably why it was...ON THE NEWS. But with an average of 66 MURDERS a day in the country, unfortunately, mere mob beatings where the victim gets up and walks away JUST DON'T MAKE NATIONAL NEWS. Think about it Ghosty. The average nightly news is, what?, half an hour? With commercials, that gives us time for about 20 seconds for each murder victim, if we don't cover anything else. Include the beating victims, and we won't even be able to read their names as they scroll up the screen. Now, I'm getting on. These old eyes aren't as sharp as they once were. Perhaps you can tell me: what are the racial identities of the young hoods in that clip? And, when the local news people say they're baffled as to what motivated this attack, do you suppose they're just withholding the "obvious" fact that it was pure and simple racial hatred? Really; what would you have the national news anchor say to accompany that clip? I'm really curious.

Quote
That's all for now. Don't worry Russell, I've saved my heavy hitters for last ......
Oh, finally! Is this where you get to the point? Is this when you, at long last, give us something other than random anecdotes with no statistical significance that demonstrate the shocking fact that a lot of humans are dirtbags, that humans are by far the most vicious primates on the planet, and that humans of European descent do not have a monopoly on barbarity? Because we already know all that. Perhaps this is where you finally reveal the hitherto baffling logic behind the megacorporations that own the media in this country plotting the downfall of capitalism and the subjugation of white christians. Please, by all means - surprise us!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,01:41   

Ghost, I've read all the examples you provided, and I have a question:

Do you think they deserve equal representation in the media?

Don't be hasty to answer... I don't mean compared to "majority against mminority" crimes; I mean, compared to each other.

Put the racial issue aside for awhile... Do you think that one of the murders you mentioned should have equal (no more, no less) media coverage with a kid hitting another with a rolled-up newspaper and making it woozy?

If yes, you must explain the reason for it... It can't be the kid's race, of course, because THAT would be bias.

If not, then how does simply pointing to all those various examples (and deserving of different coverage, respectively) help you make your point? If you want to demonstrate a bias in the media, showing any number of supposedly neglected incidents is not enough- shouldn't you compare incidents of equal severity? Shouldn't you, for example, prove that a white kid hitting a black one with a newspaper would get more publicity than a black kid doing the same to a white one?

Mind you, I'm not saying this is true or false. Like I said, I know little about the US media- the kind of discrimination that goes on in my country (and many other countries in Europe, I think) is definitely on the conservative side. For all I know, you may be right; I'm just saying you're a long way from proving it.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,03:03   

Quote
Arden Chatfield and Stevestory:

I don't mind if you post here, even if it's just to troll/insult me. But I do wonder why you bother. I mean, stevestory has made it clear that he doesn't want me "trashing" up his threads, and ordered me to GTFO of a couple of them (and yes, I obeyed). Yet here he is, returning the compliment. Why? Nobody's being forced to read this thread; in fact, it was created to make it easier to avoid unpleasant truths. So why do you care? Could it be that both of you are.....troubled by these facts, and wish to suppress them?

You pulled a Dembski and tried to use some obscure science to back up your dumb desires. I ask you to explain this 'scientific' argument in adequate detail. You of course can't, so you ignore it. I ask again. You ignore it. I ask again. And now you accuse me of trying to suppress your point? I'm trying to suppress your 'compelling' argument that heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, which would be destroyed by allowing gay marriages? By asking for you to make that argument? It's hard to resist calling you any number of things here, but instead I'll just ask you to provide the model you said you were working on, which shows how marriages are hubs in a scale-free network, and explain how gay marriage would cripple the network.

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,03:09   

Quote
I wonder if the moderator's ears are still ringing from listening to your sniveling. "For the luvva Gawd, won't you please shut this guy up?!!!!
Ask the moderator whether I've ever requested you be censored.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,05:47   

Quote (Faid @ April 28 2006,06:41)
If you want to demonstrate a bias in the media, showing any number of supposedly neglected incidents is not enough- shouldn't you compare incidents of equal severity? Shouldn't you, for example, prove that a white kid hitting a black one with a newspaper would get more publicity than a black kid doing the same to a white one?

Here's something else to think about, Bill. Of the news stories over the last 15 years involving the abduction of photogenic young women (Polly Klass, Chandra Levi), how many were about non-white women? Can you think of any? Some of these stories were headline news for months.

Are non-white women abducted, raped, and murdered so frequently that the stories about it aren't newsworthy? If that's so, what does that say about the relative levels of violence against Caucasians as compared to non-Caucasians?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,06:24   

Faid:
Quote
If you want to demonstrate a bias in the media, showing any number of supposedly neglected incidents is not enough- shouldn't you compare incidents of equal severity? Shouldn't you, for example, prove that a white kid hitting a black one with a newspaper would get more publicity than a black kid doing the same to a white one?

Don't have much time right now, but here's an article to chew on:
Quote
Charles Baum, who is white and a resident of the Kensington section of Philadelphia, had been paroled last August. He served four months less than the four- to eight-year sentence he received after being convicted of burglary, theft, criminal mischief and conspiracy in December 2000.

The video showed Officer Michael Collins, who is black, striking Baum eight times during the arrest – even after he had handcuffed his white charge. As is the standard procedure Collins was transferred to desk duty pending an investigation.

Police brutality stories are red meat to the mainstream media; this would seem to be perfect for them. If this were a white cop using excessive force to arrest a black suspect, it would be on television round-the-clock. That is always national news – especially if it is on videotape –and especially if the video is taken by the NBC network affiliate of a major city like Philadelphia. Yet the silence from the mainstream media has been deafening. Only the local Philadelphia media reported this in depth. The Washington Post gave the incident all of 177 words in their May 2 online edition.

Quote
A September 2, 2002, article, I wrote for Front Page magazine detailed the differences of reporting by the media regarding incidents where police shot a black person. One example I used was that of LaTanya Haggerty. Haggerty, who was a black woman, was shot and killed by Chicago Police Officer Serena Daniels, a black woman. The shooting took place after the police pursued a car in which Haggerty was a passenger.

More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:20   

Faid:
Oh yes, while we're at it: here are two separate articles that discuss the media perceptions of serial killers versus the bone-chilling reality. From the first:
Quote
So police came across the sniper suspects at least 11 times during the long manhunt, but let them go every time. The D.C. police chief acknowledged that race was a factor in this amazing failure. "Everybody was looking for a white car with white people," he told The Washington Post.
Writing on his Web site, Andrew Sullivan said this was racial profiling. If a white killer had been let go 11 times because cops were looking for a black man, he asked, "Wouldn't this be the basis for uproar? Wouldn't the cops involved be fired? Wouldn't there be a massive investigation ...?" Yes, and the press would have erupted in high dudgeon.

Why were police looking for a white man? The usual response is that, statistically, most serial killers are white. But that excuse would never be accepted if police had announced they were looking for black suspects simply because statistics on black crime are high.

Besides, statistical evidence about the high percentage of white snipers and serial killers is quite shaky. Whites are about three-quarters of the U.S. population but account for just over half of sniper killings, said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University, reporting on statistics for 1976-2000. Eric Hickey, a criminal psychology professor at California State University-Fresno, says there are plenty of minority serial killers -- blacks account for about 13 percent of the U.S. population and 22 percent of serial killers.
[....]
We have been down this road before. The Atlanta child murders were a big story, but the press dropped it quickly when the killer turned out to be black. [or tried to pin them on the Klan - Paley]The church burnings hoax followed the same pattern -- a big story when arsonists were assumed to be white racists, an instant media departure when they turned out to be black.

But he's just an evil wingnut, right? Let's try the other article:
Quote
The assumption was that all serial killers were young, whacked out white males. It is easy to believe that. In the rash of Hollywood slasher, horror, and maniacal thrill kill films, serial killers are routinely depicted as deranged white males. The obsessive media attention on serial killers such as Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and the Unabomber, also reinforce the notion that serial killers are loopy white males. The horde of police, profiling experts, and psychologists that paraded endlessly across the TV screen during the serial sniper ordeal speculating about who the killer was and why he killed bought into this stereotype.

If, as it appears, John Allen Muhammad, cold-bloodedly gunned down a dozen persons, and terrorized the Washington D.C. area, they were all embarrassingly, and wildly wrong in their assumptions. And all the old profiles and theories about who mass killers are must be scrapped. But then again those profiles should be scrapped. Muhammad is not a total aberration.

Two studies on serial killers that specifically looked at the race of the killers found that blacks make up about 15 percent of America's rogue's gallery of mass murderers.
[....]
The victims of black serial murderers almost always are other blacks, who most often live in the poorest inner city neighborhoods where the murder rates are far higher than in middle-class suburbs. Because black on black violence is so entrenched and pervasive, it is far too often considered routine, and police are often more lax in their attitudes toward the violence than if the victims were white. This makes it much easier for black serial murders to go undetected for far longer times.

The implicit message is that black lives are expendable. This perceived devaluation of black lives through the horrid mix of racism, ignorance, and indifference has encouraged disrespect for the law and has forced many blacks to internalize anger and displace aggression onto other blacks.

I think there's a good deal of truth to this, but I suspect that lefty embarrassment contributes as well.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:32   

Quote
Just three questions and I'll leave this side issue alone:
1) Jews have been harshly discriminated against for millenia: True or False?
2) Jews, taken as a group, have been extraordinarily productive and civilised relative to Gentiles: True or False?
3) If you answer "True" for both of the above: How is this possible under the liberal "discrimination" model?


Hey Eric, why haven't you answered these questions yet?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,07:47   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 28 2006,12:32)
Quote
Just three questions and I'll leave this side issue alone:
1) Jews have been harshly discriminated against for millenia: True or False?
2) Jews, taken as a group, have been extraordinarily productive and civilised relative to Gentiles: True or False?
3) If you answer "True" for both of the above: How is this possible under the liberal "discrimination" model?


Hey Eric, why haven't you answered these questions yet?

I thought I already had.

As I pointed out, gay people have also suffered discrimination, and have also made major contributions to civilization.

Are you trying to argue that peoples suffering from discrimination shouldn't be able to make contributions to society? Because that's clearly not true anyway, and a straw man argument. I don't think even you would argue that African Americans have never suffered discrimination, and yet they have managed to make substantial contributions to civilization nevertheless.

Maybe you're not making your point clearly here, because I'm having a hard time figuring out what your argument is.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,08:45   

Wait wait- is undermining incidents of police brutality concidered a liberal bias in the US now? That's new.

Ghost, what did I tell you about quoting from biased sites? Let's see...

The logic of the author's piece in regard to the first incident goes like:

"The media are liberally biased, so they should always blow events of police brutality way out of proportion, regardless of their severity. They didn't do that here, and the only possible reason for that is (one of) the officer's colour. Therefore, the media are liberally biased".

'Nuff said.

As for Haggerty's killing: Regardless of what your site says, a simple googling shows that it was far from undermined- especially considering that there was no civil uproar and riots following it. And of course, the more liberal the media, the more vocal it was.

As for your third quote: I don't know about evil, but a nut... Tell me, if you hear a cop say "we're looking for a white car with white passengers", what's the first thought that passes your mind: That he's racially discriminating against people -and cars? what? Because I think the poor guy had a description to watch out for, and that description turned out to be wrong. I could be wrong myself of course: But like I said, an actual report of the events might be welcomed as evidence... Some guys babble is not.
Either way, even if it is so, how does it relate to liberally biased media? Were the cops deluded by the media in some way? Were testimonies of witnesses that said the killer was black get suppressed by the news? I'm curious.

And the fourth quote... I really don't know what to say. I totally agree with it: I think that the belief that serial killers must be white is as unfounded and dangerous as that robbers, murderers and rapists must be black. Again, I fail to see how this proves any "liberal bias in the media", however. Are you sure you quoted the right part?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,09:42   

Faid:
Quote
Wait wait- is undermining incidents of police brutality concidered a liberal bias in the US now? That's new.

"Police Brutality" is only important when it undermines "the Establishment" (read: WASPS). Multiculturalism trumps all else with our bell-bottomed belles.
Quote
As for Haggerty's killing: Regardless of what your site says, a simple googling shows that it was far from undermined- especially considering that there was no civil uproar and riots following it.

Yes, the Chicago media covered it pretty heavily, but is LaTanya Haggerty a household name like Amadou Diallo? I don't think so, and 9 out of 10 cartoonists agree. And of course there wasn't civil unrest in the Haggerty shooting: there was no honkey to pin the tale on:
Quote
From the day he took office, Rudy Giuliani threatened the foundations of the liberal worldview—denouncing identity politics, demanding work from welfare recipients, and, above all, successfully fighting crime by fighting criminals, rather than blathering about crime’s supposed "root causes," racism and poverty. It was a godsend for his opponents that the four officers who killed Diallo were white, allowing the incident to stand as proof of alleged departmental racism, the "dark side" (in The Economist’s triumphant headline) of Giuliani’s conquest of crime. Now it was payback time.

The Clinton administration jumped in immediately, sending FBI agents and federal prosecutors to the Bronx to help the local district attorney investigate the shooting and probably to start building a federal case against the officers and the department as well. The president denounced police misconduct (implying that the Diallo officers were guilty of deliberate brutality or racism); Hillary Clinton, readying her New York Senate run, let it be known that she was consulting with local Democratic pols about the Diallo case. Both the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the Justice Department announced investigations into the NYPD as a whole and the Street Crime Unit in particular; the Justice Department inquiry could ultimately—and preposterously—lead to damaging federal monitoring of the city’s police. The state attorney general started his own duplicative inquiry into the department’s stop-and-frisk practices. One Police Plaza has become a round-the-clock paperwork-processing center for the numerous investigations.

Meanwhile, Al Sharpton and other local activists were experimenting with various protest venues. Sharpton’s fellow reverend, Calvin Butts, announced a consumer boycott, whose relevance remained inscrutable. The Reverend Al finally settled on having his followers arrested for sitting in on police headquarters. His big break came when David Dinkins and Congressman Charles Rangel joined his protest and got their picture on the front page of the New York Times in plastic handcuffs. Bingo! The civil-disobedience campaign became an overnight sensation.

A wider range of Giuliani antagonists—and a very occasional, much-cherished "celebrity," such as Susan Sarandon—started showing up to be photographed and arrested. Not one objected to the vicious anti-police and anti-Giuliani rhetoric spewed out daily by Sharpton followers, nor did any shrink from linking arms with the city’s most noisome racial troublemaker, despite his recent conviction for slander in the notorious Tawana Brawley hoax. After the announcement of almost unprecedentedly severe second-degree murder indictments of the four officers, Sharpton and a coalition of left-wing labor leaders and Democratic activists organized a march across Brooklyn Bridge on April 15 to promote a hastily devised "Ten Point Plan" for police reform.

Quote
Either way, even if it is so, how does it relate to liberally biased media? Were the cops deluded by the media in some way? Were testimonies of witnesses that said the killer was black get suppressed by the news? I'm curious.

Because the media lied about the percentage of white serial killers, and this, combined with the usual coverups, led to inefficient police work.

Paley's tune.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,09:47   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 28 2006,14:42)
Because the media lied about the percentage of white serial killers, and this, combined with the usual coverups, led to inefficient police work.

Paley's tune.

And this is important why? Does the police department look to the media to tell them which sorts of crimes should be solved, and which shouldn't?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:08   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 28 2006,14:42)
And of course there wasn't civil unrest in the Haggerty shooting: there was no honkey to pin the tale on:
Quote
From the day he took office, Rudy Giuliani threatened the foundations of the liberal worldview—denouncing identity politics, demanding work from welfare recipients, and, above all, successfully fighting crime by fighting criminals, rather than blathering about crime’s supposed "root causes," racism and poverty. It was a godsend for his opponents that the four officers who killed Diallo were white, allowing the incident to stand as proof of alleged departmental racism, the "dark side" (in The Economist’s triumphant headline) of Giuliani’s conquest of crime. Now it was payback time.

The Clinton administration jumped in immediately, sending FBI agents and federal prosecutors to the Bronx to help the local district attorney investigate the shooting and probably to start building a federal case against the officers and the department as well. The president denounced police misconduct (implying that the Diallo officers were guilty of deliberate brutality or racism); Hillary Clinton, readying her New York Senate run, let it be known that she was consulting with local Democratic pols about the Diallo case. Both the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the Justice Department announced investigations into the NYPD as a whole and the Street Crime Unit in particular; the Justice Department inquiry could ultimately—and preposterously—lead to damaging federal monitoring of the city’s police. The state attorney general started his own duplicative inquiry into the department’s stop-and-frisk practices. One Police Plaza has become a round-the-clock paperwork-processing center for the numerous investigations.

Meanwhile, Al Sharpton and other local activists were experimenting with various protest venues. Sharpton’s fellow reverend, Calvin Butts, announced a consumer boycott, whose relevance remained inscrutable. The Reverend Al finally settled on having his followers arrested for sitting in on police headquarters. His big break came when David Dinkins and Congressman Charles Rangel joined his protest and got their picture on the front page of the New York Times in plastic handcuffs. Bingo! The civil-disobedience campaign became an overnight sensation.

A wider range of Giuliani antagonists—and a very occasional, much-cherished "celebrity," such as Susan Sarandon—started showing up to be photographed and arrested. Not one objected to the vicious anti-police and anti-Giuliani rhetoric spewed out daily by Sharpton followers, nor did any shrink from linking arms with the city’s most noisome racial troublemaker, despite his recent conviction for slander in the notorious Tawana Brawley hoax. After the announcement of almost unprecedentedly severe second-degree murder indictments of the four officers, Sharpton and a coalition of left-wing labor leaders and Democratic activists organized a march across Brooklyn Bridge on April 15 to promote a hastily devised "Ten Point Plan" for police reform.

Nice story, Ghost. So, tell me, hasn't the idea that haggerty isn't a household name (boy you even use the exact same phrases as the sites you cite) because there were no riots and civil unrest regarding it, ever run through your head?


Quote

Because the media lied about the percentage of white serial killers,


What that it's 85% ? How did it lie, exactly? and where? and how did that affect police work?

Quote
and this, combined with the usual coverups, led to inefficient police work.

So, the police chief and the investigators that made the mistakes were in fact working for the biased media? thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, and thanks for the link, since it showed that the cop was, in fact, looking for a description, and that that other guy you quoted is a nutjob.



Quote

Paley's tune.

...Huh?  ???

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:24   

Faid:
Quote
What that it's 85% ? How did it lie, exactly? and where? and how did that affect police work?


Look, DC is a majority-black district. Given that blacks are overrepresented among serial killers, not underrepresented as the media would have it, the police were irrational to assume a white killer. Gotta run.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:33   

Mr the Ghost of Paley,

Could this be connected with cannibalism? This would lead to gut to gamete transfer of genetic information, would it not?

Cards on the table. Do I have do go to my grave still wondering about your guts to gametes paper, or can I relax and enjoy my twilight years? Cut the equivocation and be honest with me and yourself. Admit you are going nowhere with this idea and move on. No one will think the less of you; quite the contrary.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,10:53   

I just thought that because upwards of 70% of journalists (in America) self-identified as "liberal" when only around 40% of the general population does the same was enough evidence for a "liberal" media bias.

This makes those "liberals" that claim a conservative media bias look even more ridiculous.

I will admit though, that as far the new media is concerned, conservatives are making incredible inroads and I'm sure this scares "liberals" in some regard.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,11:42   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 28 2006,15:24)
Look, DC is a majority-black district. Given that blacks are overrepresented among serial killers, not underrepresented as the media would have it, the police were irrational to assume a white killer. Gotta run.

Wait a minute. The article says 15% of serial killers are black. But D.C. is majority (i.e., > 50%) black, how does that make blacks over-represented among serial killers?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,11:54   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 28 2006,15:53)
This makes those "liberals" that claim a conservative media bias look even more ridiculous.

Let's see: which newspaper broke Whitewater?

(The New York Times)

Which newspaper reporter was Ken Starr leaking to?

(Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post)

Chalabi was leaking information to which journalist?

(Judith Miller of the New York Times)

Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, George Will, William Safire (all columnists for the New York Times or the Washington Post) are liberal or conservative?

How many liberal columnists, cumulatively, are there for National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page?

(zero)

How many times has Ann Coulter been on Hardball with Christ Matthews?

(eight times)

How many times has Michael Moore been on Hardball with Chris Matthews?

(zero times)

Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage are the number one, two, and three most popular radio talk show hosts. How many of these gentlemen can be described as "liberal"?

Still think there's a liberal bias in the media, Thordaddy?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,12:01   

ericmurphy,

No... I think that 70+% of those self-identified "liberal" journalists are really objective just like all you "scientists."  LOL!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,12:07   

Quote
Do I have do go to my grave still wondering about your guts to gametes paper, or can I relax and enjoy my twilight years?
Is that one of these things like Scale-Free Networks, or that outline, checks Paley's mouth wrote but his brain can't deliver?

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,13:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 28 2006,17<!--emo&:0)
ericmurphy,

No... I think that 70+% of those self-identified "liberal" journalists are really objective just like all you "scientists."  LOL!

What about all those self-described conservative opinion columnists? Are they "objective" too? Because I guarantee you that Bill O'Reilly has more influence over public opinion than any 200 AP stringers, no matter how "liberal" they claim to be.

The evidence of conservative bias in the media is mountainous, and it doesn't matter how many journalists describe themselves as "liberal."

Are News Corporation, General Electric, or Disney "liberal" corporations? Because they're huge media players, and control at least 70% of the news Americans get.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,13:34   

eric,

Didn't you make the claim that if the vast majority of Fortune 500 CEOs were white then that is evidence of racism?

Why doesn't the same thing apply to the media?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2006,13:49   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 28 2006,18:34)
eric,

Didn't you make the claim that if the vast majority of Fortune 500 CEOs were white then that is evidence of racism?

Why doesn't the same thing apply to the media?

Nope.

Just because someone claims to be liberal does not mean he or she is biased. Do you think that someone can be conservative and unbiased? Or should only people who have absolutely no opinion on cultural or political issues be allowed to be journalists?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:01   

Faid:
Quote
If not, then how does simply pointing to all those various examples (and deserving of different coverage, respectively) help you make your point? If you want to demonstrate a bias in the media, showing any number of supposedly neglected incidents is not enough- shouldn't you compare incidents of equal severity? Shouldn't you, for example, prove that a white kid hitting a black one with a newspaper would get more publicity than a black kid doing the same to a white one?


Eric:
Quote
Do you have a Lexis-Nexis account? Because if not, you're not going to convince anyone of the amount of reporting on the issue just by doing Google Searches, because Google searches by their very nature aren't an accurate presentation of how many stories are actually out there.


Ok guys, here's an example of exactly what you asked for; but now that you have it, why do I suspect you won't really like it?
Quote
Analysis of press coverage of alleged police brutality cases strongly argues that the media’s portrayal of police brutality focuses on racism as a central issue rather than simply reporting on the abuse of law enforcement. A comparison on the coverage of five recent cases: Patrick Dorismond, Amadou Diallo, Timothy Thomas, Thomas Jones, and Gideon Busch clearly reveals the role that race plays in the media’s selection of cases portrayed in the United States. Each one of the five individuals stated above was a victim of police overstepping and abusing their authority and each case has been referred to as an example of police brutality. While the cases share a common thread, their differences might be more important to note. Dorismond, Diallo, and Thomas were Black men brutalized by White police officers, Busch was White and was shot by White officers, and Jones is Black and was abused by a group of mostly Black officers. The media tends to focus on racism as the sole reason for the abuse of Diallo, Dorismond, and Thomas.
[.....]
Media coverage of the following case defied logic. Recently in Philadelphia, Thomas Jones, a black male was severely beaten by police. A television helicopter caught the scene on tape.   Police fired fifty shots at him, grabbed him out of his car and beat him. The beating was all too familiar and reminiscent of the King incident. The Washington Post expressed a sense of deja vu on July 14, 2000 stating , “what was shown on tape…was enough to bring to some minds the 1991 beating by Los Angeles Police of Rodney King, an incident that has become a rallying point against police brutality.”   If the media’s responses to Rodney King’s beating were unprecedented, and the sensationalized video became a rallying point against police brutality, attention drawn to the recently taped Jones beating would be insurmountable. Analysis of his coverage, however, tells a different story. His did not follow the same path in major newspapers that King’s had. During the first six months after each respective episode, newspapers wrote over 1000 articles on Rodney King and only 161 on Thomas Jones. In order to get a clearer understanding of the issue, a Lexis Nexis search for articles containing each victim’s name and police brutality showed the same disparity. The first six months revealed only seventy-six articles on Jones and 368 documents on King.

   As both cases had almost identical circumstances, including the race of the victims, what could the difference be between these cases?   The difference lies in the race of the police officers.   White officers beat Rodney King, while those who beat and shot Thomas Jones were both black and white.
[....]
 Using the Lexis-Nexis system, the number of articles written in mainstream newspapers was revealed for each victim. Because the amount of coverage for Diallo was staggering, including thousands of newspaper articles, a comparison of articles is best observed using only the first month’s coverage. Newspapers reported on Amadou in 988 articles in the northeast, fifty-nine in the Midwest, fifty-seven, in the southeast, and forty-three in the west. One year later, Patrick Dorismond was shot by the NYPD in a controversial drug bust. He was covered in 516 articles in the northeast, twelve in the Midwest, fifty-three in the southeast, and twenty-two in the west. Last month, Timothy Thomas was shot to death in Cincinnati as he was fleeing from police. He was covered in ninety articles in the Midwest, twenty-two in the northeast, fifty in the southeast, and seven in the west. The sheer number of newspaper articles demonstrates how the media brought each victim’s ordeal into the forefront of the nation’s consciousness.
[....]
 Notably, some victims such as Gideon Busch, do not receive as much consideration. He was a mentally ill Jewish man who held a hammer and was shot to death by police on August 31, 1999. The shooting occurred just five months after the highly publicized Amadou Diallo incident. Given the media’s obsession with police brutality coverage, one could assume that Gideon Busch’s story would sweep the nation. Because police had crossed the line and shot an American, his story would probably have struck fear in the hearts of many more Americans than had Amadou. That is not to justify senseless violence motivated by xenophobia and hatred, rather it is an example to show that Busch, a native born citizen rather than immigrant, might have logically made the story of wider interest. The threat of police brutality might have become more tangible to the broad swath of the population. Gideon Busch could have created a national epiphany on the subject of police violence.

   If Gideon Busch’s story had followed the trajectory of Amadou Diallo, it would have been a national outrage, with coverage matching or exceeding the more than 1000 stories on the Diallo case. Revealingly, Gideon Busch’s coverage paled in comparison to Diallo. The mainstream media ignored Busch. In the northeast, forty-six articles were written, two in the southeast, zero in the west, and zero in the midwest. The first month’s forty-eight national articles were less than what Amadou had received in the southeast alone. And a majority of the articles came from local newspapers such as The Daily News and The New York Post.

   The United States was not alone in minimally covering Busch. Worldwide he received minor attention in the first month after his death. Canada and South America didn’t write any articles on him. They wrote forty-seven for Diallo, thirty for Dorismond, and twenty-one for Thomas. Busch inspired only two articles in Europe. Lexis-Nexis revealed the grand total for the first month of each victim’s international coverage, including Europe, Asia/Pacific regions, Africa and the Mideast, and North/South America. Amadou had 109 articles, Dorismond sixty-nine, Thomas 101, compared to Busch’s paltry four. Patrick Dorismond, shot a year after Busch, received more media attention abroad than Busch received in the United States and the world combined.

      Busch’s less than stellar attention abroad might be attributed to the fact that he was armed. But such an explanation for the media’s silence presumes that the Busch story was understood as a legitimate police response to an armed assailant, rather than an episode of police brutality. When in fact, many of the Busch news accounts that covered the episode alluded to Busch’s death being an example of police violence.

   While mainstream media ignored Busch, it would be easy to assume that he’d receive more attention in ethnic and religious newspapers. Suprisingly, Busch, a Hasidic Jew received less publicity in Jewish newspapers than did Diallo. The Jewish Week wrote six articles on Busch – nine on Diallo. Forward, another Jewish newspaper wrote seven articles on Busch and fourteen on Diallo. The Jewish Advocate wrote one article on Diallo but did not advocate for Gideon. New Jersey Jewish News published six articles on Diallo- zero on Busch. Was that because he was not from Jersey? It is unlikely, as Diallo was not either. Other papers from the New York region are guilty of the same offense. El Diario/La Prensa, the largest circulation Spanish newspaper in the area, wrote sixty-five articles on Diallo and a measly five on Busch. The disproportion is evident in other ethnic papers as well such as Filipino Reporter, The Italian Voice, and Irish Voice, all of which published between one and five articles each on Diallo but did not follow suit for Busch. Perhaps both mainstream and ethnic newspapers find matters that don’t sensationalize racism as arbitrary or unnewsworthy. Media gives more publicity and attention to police brutality cases that can be attributed to racism. Cases such as Busch’s are essentially ignored.
[....]
The media’s compulsive chase after white on black police violence reveals the beginning of what can arguably be a racial panic. The media’s creation of a racial panic is best shown through a former moral panic created by the media in regards to drugs. Philip Jenkins’ research published in Justice Quarterly reprinted in The American Drug Scene, shows the influence that the media has in creating a drug epidemic. He warns that a moral panic regarding a particular drug actually advertises it to many Americans. In other words, the media has the capacity to create a problem that may not be as problematic as the coverage maintains it to be. For example, Jenkins suggests that in the 1980s, “Newspapers assigned journalists to cover such stories as their sole responsibility, …the papers had a vested interest in the constant generation of newsworthy items in the area.”  Journalists worked solely to cover drug stories. They pursued and covered the so-called drug epidemic. Newspapers were purposely over extending their coverage on particular drugs, sensationalizing an epidemic, which resulted in a moral panic and increased drug use.   Could the media be exploiting America’s struggle with racism in order to create a crisis that generates news?    Jenkins’ research demonstrated another interesting media trend, the disappearance of a crisis. The media had created a methamphetamine, or ice, national crisis. Unfortunately for the media, “the ice danger did not materialize as a national crisis, and the prospective ‘plague’ faded rapidly in early 1990”.  If a real epidemic does not result from the coverage, the issue is quickly dropped. The media then moves on to another topic that it can manipulate.
[....]
And like the impact that the media’s moral panic had on increasing drug use, the media’s racial panic may have had an impact on racial tension. So much so that people’s reactions to media coverage could have resulted in violent behavior. Busch and Thomas protests best exemplifies how the media may have influenced people. After Gideon Busch’s death, a small group of Hasidic Jews held a demonstration in his neighborhood. The Daily News criticized protestors for their voiced discontent with the police. Robert Gearty and Dave Goldiner, wrote, “The Busch shooting sparked angry street protestors in Borough Park, a heavily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood. But only a few Hasidic Jews were present at yesterday’s services” . The protestors were questioned as to what their motive was for reacting. Their credibility was challenged because they didn’t go to Busch’s funeral. Their ideals and anger toward excessive force was not considered.

   Unlike the demonstrations in Borough Park, Cincinnati was subjected to violent riots. It is possible that the exaggerated coverage of Diallo and Dorismond had an impact on public behavior when Timothy Thomas was shot last month. The press couldn’t criticize small protests; instead it could only antagonize riots. On the subject, The Chicago Times wrote, “ A white police officer pleaded not guilty Wed. to misdemeanor charges in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man that prompted three nights of riots in Cincinnati in April”.  The riot was three nights long. The rioters’ motives were not questioned. They were not criticized for their anger nor were they chastised for not attending Mr. Thomas’ funeral.

   It is possible that the media has a “vested interest” in covering brutality that could be manipulated into a racially motivated crime. These sensational stories can manipulate the audience and may create increased racial tension throughout the country.
[....]
No less unjust, however, is the media’s extensive coverage of certain instances of brutality and not others. The media must remain true to what they are reporting about. In instances of police brutality, skewing the topics at hand serves less to objectively inform the public and more to perpetuate racism. We as a society should focus on relieving the social and racial stereotypes that minorities have to live with. This includes the racial sensationalism brought forth by the media. By not addressing the real issue, police brutality, and revealing it only in terms of racial beatings, police are able to continue to abuse their power. Police brutality remains brutal regardless of the shade of skin color the victim or the perpetrator has. The injustice lingers. Police abusing their power should always be brought to light, therefore biased accounts of the incidents should not be the media’s focus. Newspapers should not write emphasizing only those subjects they feel would bring them more profit. Profit should not be gained as a result of bloodshed.


This is backed up by a search of newspaper archives. If you check the Washington Post, for example, you'll see that they extensively covered the Diallo shooting before the major marches and candlelight vigils.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:07   

Given the number of times Ghost of Paley has promised an argument, failed to deliver, and simply moved on to a new argument, and given that he accuses us of doing exactly that, which he referred to as a Shell Game, I suggest his new nickname be Ghost in the Shell.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:20   

Eric:
Quote
Wait a minute. The article says 15% of serial killers are black. But D.C. is majority (i.e., > 50%) black, how does that make blacks over-represented among serial killers?

No, the 15% estimate (you chose the lower estimate, I notice) is for the entire country, not the district. Since Blacks are only 13% of the American population, this means that blacks are overrepresented. So if American blacks are at least as likely as whites to commit serial murders, and the region is majority black, you'd expect the killer to be black. [edit: and I see no evidence that black serial murderers are more likely to stick within one race than white killers are.]

stevestory:
Quote
Given the number of times Ghost of Paley has promised an argument, failed to deliver, and simply moved on to a new argument, and given that he accuses us of doing exactly that, which he referred to as a Shell Game, I suggest his new nickname be Ghost in the Shell.

Ummmm....Steve, I just gave Eric and Faid the bit of evidence that they asked for. I see this bothers you, hence the attempt at misdirection.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:26   

Point me to the post where you explain how heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, and why gay marriage would alter the links in a disastrous way. You said it was compelling, I just want to see it.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,09:36   

Quote
Point me to the post where you explain how heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, and why gay marriage would alter the links in a disastrous way. You said it was compelling, I just want to see it.

If you don't like it, why not complain about it in the appropriate thread? Flint did. But we all know what this is about - you're trying to misdirect the audience because you see that my latest citation is all too relevant to the issue on this thread. Remember, I used to be a member of your Kool-Aid cult, and I know all of your tricks. Your stained undies are being aired for the whole internet community to see, you can't shut me up, and that drives you nuts, doesn't it? But just wait until the big guns come out.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,10:06   

Ghost - you seem to be trying to prove points that are not in contention.  I, for one, believe that the Diallo, Rodney King, etc. stories ARE more about racism than the propriety of police conduct in these particular cases. I also, for one, believe that cases of majority-on-minority racism have a lower threshold for causing that media-public positive feedback loop known as a "news sensation" than do cases of minority-on-majority racism. I also want to be clear - and I think I've said this already - that I don't believe the contemporary press is doing a very admirable job at telling it like it is. It would not surprise me if they were less aggressive than they should have been in a case like the Charles Baum incident out of fear of public reaction.*
* (That being said, apparently, I believe that story was carried on the national news. How else did your source, Tremoglie, become aware of it? The fact that it didn't become a "sensation", again, I suspect has at least as much to do with the lack of the public part of the media-public feedback loop as any failing of the press).

But the failure of the press to hold the administration responsible for knowingly using false pretenses to drag us into a war costing tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars - a caving-in to the right, not the left - strikes me as much more reprehensible.

In other words, if your point is that the press is not only not perfect, it's not even living up to minimum standards of competence, then I agree; end of dispute (at least as far as I'm concerned). But what you haven't provided any evidence for is any "liberal agenda".

If you were serious about backing up your theory, you would address Eric Murphy's comment (Posted on April 28 2006,16:54). And if you were seriously interested in the ideal of objective reporting (and I use the word "ideal" advisedly, since it can only be aimed for, never achieved) you would not be relying on such thoroughly discredited sources as David Horowitz and WorldNutDaily.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:13   

Thanks, Ghost- after furiously googling and quoting (and... singing?  ??? ) you finally found something remotely relevant. A student essay from a criminal justice college, but still.
Now, I can't tell how these students fared in the subsequent debate -I'm interested in how they supported this point:
Quote
As both cases had almost identical circumstances, including the race of the victims, what could the difference be between these cases?   The difference lies in the race of the police officers.   White officers beat Rodney King, while those who beat and shot Thomas Jones were both black and white.

Concidering the fact that a wave of civil unrest and riots, leading to 50+ deaths and 8000+ arrests, should make the two cases seem a little different, media-wise.
<edit: and the same goes for comparing the cases of Diallo and Busch as identical- check out the stories>

But I can assume they did alright. Now, what was demonstrated? that the media's eye gets a glint whenever racism rears its ugly head. Of course, racism sells: Living in Greece, I know that firsthand. How does that demonstrate a liberal bias, That's for you to explain.

[Tell you what: Go back to your Google search, only this time, instead of looking how many of the media stood out by referring to all the less-covered police brutality incidents, check out what kind of media (newspapers, magazines, sites) they were (and I mean actually report the incidents, not use them in retrospect to argue for biased media).
...See? Now that's liberal.]

But don't take my word for it- read the students' conclusion in the quote you yourself posted:
Quote
No less unjust, however, is the media’s extensive coverage of certain instances of brutality and not others. The media must remain true to what they are reporting about. In instances of police brutality, skewing the topics at hand serves less to objectively inform the public and more to perpetuate racism. We as a society should focus on relieving the social and racial stereotypes that minorities have to live with. This includes the racial sensationalism brought forth by the media. By not addressing the real issue, police brutality, and revealing it only in terms of racial beatings, police are able to continue to abuse their power. Police brutality remains brutal regardless of the shade of skin color the victim or the perpetrator has. The injustice lingers. Police abusing their power should always be brought to light, therefore biased accounts of the incidents should not be the media’s focus. Newspapers should not write emphasizing only those subjects they feel would bring them more profit. Profit should not be gained as a result of bloodshed.


So, what the kids say is that the media corporations should not exploit racial issues and knee-jerk reactions to racism for numbers and profit. Yep, they sure showed them liberals!

Ghost, I think your tune should be:

Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
The nearer the destination
The more you're slip slidin' away





PS. One more thing, about the WP paragraph: Please, please don't post bogeys (irrelevant links). It's bad netiquette of the worst form. Besides, this is a forum for thinking people: Everyone will hit them.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,11:15   

Quote
If you don't like it, why not complain about it in the appropriate thread? Flint did. But we all know what this is about - you're trying to misdirect the audience because you see that my latest citation is all too relevant to the issue on this thread.
Actually I don't know what's even being discussed on this thread. I've read maybe a dozen comments here. I gather it's something about the liberal media. Yeah, the media leans liberal. I don't care. I'm here because I followed you here, Ghost in the Shell.

Got that model yet? I've heard it's compelling, I want to see it.

Quote
But just wait until the big guns come out.....

Will the big guns be coming out before or after you unveil the Scale Free Marriage Network?

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,12:16   

"But just wait until the big guns come out....."

This would be a variation on the Disdainful False Confidence Display* I pointed out above.

*(Sometimes known as the Cordova Cockstrut)

Reminds me of the standard parting shot of the kid who just got the snot beaten out of him: "Just you wait till my big brother comes after you! Then you're gonna be sorry!"

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,12:34   

Quote
(GoP: ) ... the media lied about the percentage of white serial killers

Quote
(Faid: ) What that it's 85% ? How did it lie, exactly? and where? and how did that affect police work? [quote]
[quote](GoP: ) Look, DC is a majority-black district. Given that blacks are overrepresented among serial killers, not underrepresented as the media would have it, the police were irrational to assume a white killer.

I'll take GhostGuy's gripes about media integrity a little more seriously when he demonstrates that he at least understands the concept.

Here's a specific assertion: "the media lied". Which media? Where? Either admit that that was itself a lie (Oh, OK: call it "hyperbole" if you want to save face. Or, what's Dembski's term? "Street theater"?) or back it up. It's really quite simple.

Quote
Gotta run.
Isn't that the truth!

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,13:44   

Bill, even if your thesis—that the press tends to over-report majority-on-minority violence and under-report minority-on-majority violence…well, what would your point be? I've asked this question before, and evidently you've answered with more evidence to support your premise.

But until you explain exactly why I should be concerned should your premise turn out to be true, I'm not sure I care. The press is guilty of far more serious transgressions, and pretty much everyone, on both the left and right of the political spectrum, acknowledges that the press in the United States is a bad joke.

I still don't really know what you're trying to prove here.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2006,15:00   

Stupid of me... I should have noticed at once that Paley snipped off, in mid-paragraph, the actual reasons the authors of the essay propose for this observed bias- and their justification:

Quote
[...]The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.”   Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin.  The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.

   If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background.

"Liberal" bias. Riiiiight.
 And they go on with an interesting read:  
Quote
Minorities face daily injustices to the extent that many white Americans will never really know or understand. Racial discrimination and oppression is visible in the minority faces of our prison populations due to the majority bias of the criminal justice system. Many Americans assume that the system exists to provide justice when in fact it mainly serves those that can afford to manipulate it via their esteemed status and/or expensive lawyers. Since race serves as a proxy for class, the institution we place so much faith in and assume to be just is actually nothing more than a fallacy. In his book The Rich get Richer…and the Poor get Prison, economist Jeffrey Rieman points out that lower class youths were found more likely to be referred to juvenile court, more likely to be institutionalized, and police were more likely to allow higher status families handle matters themselves without referring them to court . And if charged with a crime people with larger incomes can afford better attorneys and can post bail when needed. Paid attorneys are more likely do a better job than those who receive considerably less. Our criminal justice system assures the right to counsel, but cannot guarantee they will do the best job possible. Race and wealth are obviously two major factors attributing to the bias.

     The police contribute to the bias in ways such as racial profiling. A 1988 Harvard Law Review overview of racial studies related to the criminal justice system concluded that, “most studies...reveal what many police officers freely admit: that police use race as an independently significant, if not determinative, factor in deciding whom to follow, detain, search or arrest.”   Racial profiling gained extensive attention in recent years because it is unjust.
(Paley starts quoting again)

And you thought it would be us who wouldn't like it, right Ghost?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,04:01   

Quote
This is backed up by a search of newspaper archives. If you check the Washington Post, for example, you'll see that they extensively covered the Diallo shooting before the major marches and candlelight vigils.
Was that link supposed to prove that point? If so, it failed.

Look. The point that I made - and this is as close as you've come to recognizing it - is that news "sensations" generally represent a media-public positive feedback loop. This is no exception. Within hours of the incident, Al Sharpton was drawing attention to it. Do you think the public ignored him, and the press, for a month before there was any significant public feedback? That's not the way I remember it.

Do you have anything else to show for your search of newspaper archives, or is that the extent of it? It wouldn't surprise me if it is. That's very much the pattern of creationist "research":  sift through data until you come up with some published factoid that - on its face and without too much probing - seems at odds with the overwhelmingly consistent fabric of observations that support the consensus view, and claim that it's everybody else that is not exercising critical judgment.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,10:42   

Faid wrote:
Quote
Stupid of me(*)... I should have noticed at once that Paley snipped off, in mid-paragraph, the actual reasons the authors of the essay propose for this observed bias- and their justification:
and then proceeded to document how the Ghost Guy, by surgically excising the relevant context, distorted the message of his source beyond recognition.

This is the same Ghost, mind you, who wrote this:
Quote
Notice that our friend snips around the systematic racial bullying(**) ...  But this is nothing new for liberals.

I can't help but wonder whether  Ghost Guy is  intentionally deceitful, whether he's simply "blinded by the right", or whether there really is a meaningful distinction between the two.

*(Faid should not be too hard on himself, though, as tracking down all of Ghosty's apparent lapses in intellectual integrity would consume far more time than it's worth.)

**(I invite anyone who is sufficiently curious, and/or looking for diversion from more productive endeavors, to go back and check whether my "snipping" was to minimize the bullying in question, or for the sake of conciseness - in light of the fact that I included the most egregious instance - the death-threat by the box-cutter wielder.)

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,11:42   

Faid:
Quote
Stupid of me... I should have noticed at once that Paley snipped off, in mid-paragraph, the actual reasons the authors of the essay propose for this observed bias- and their justification:

Russell:
Quote
I can't help but wonder whether  Ghost Guy is  intentionally deceitful, whether he's simply "blinded by the right", or whether there really is a meaningful distinction between the two.

*(Faid should not be too hard on himself, though, as tracking down all of Ghosty's apparent lapses in intellectual integrity would consume far more time than it's worth.)

Oh, man, do I love debating liberals! This is too funny....you guys really think that I would try to distort a source that I linked to? Even if I was the despicable person you suspect, give me credit for some level of intelligence. But in case you were wondering, I neglected to quote that part because I don't care about debating side issues such as legal or financial inequities among the races - I just want the author's data and reasoning on the topic we were like, you know, actually discussing: media bias. Even the part that relates to Faid's hypothesis.....
Quote
[...]The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.”   Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin.  The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.

  If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background.

....was based on nothing but speculation. Although speaking of which, they do suggest that the media plays a part in creating the climate of racial hysteria, which then creates those oh-so-marketable stories:
Quote
Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic.

But this doesn't establish motive - it takes other evidence to do that. The point remains the same: the media considers black victims of white bias more newsworthy than the converse. But please keep Faid's hypothesis in mind....later, I plan to show why it's seriously flawed.

Russell:
Quote
**(I invite anyone who is sufficiently curious, and/or looking for diversion from more productive endeavors, to go back and check whether my "snipping" was to minimize the bullying in question, or for the sake of conciseness - in light of the fact that I included the most egregious instance - the death-threat by the box-cutter wielder.)

Relax, Russell, I admit that you're not being insensitive. I'm just trying to emphasize the fact that these crimes are motivated by minority racism. I thought that you were trying to downplay the racial angle. But since you concede that at least some whites and Asians suffer from racism, I apologize and drop my accusations of quote-mining.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,11:54   

Wooohoooo! Ghost finally published the Scale-Free Marriage Network Model. (scan scan scan) Crap. He didn't. :-( It's been over a week, and Ghost in the Shell can't come through with the 'compelling' evidence.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,12:08   

Quote
Oh, man, do I love debating liberals! This is too funny....you guys really think that I would try to distort a source that I linked to?
Not necessarily. If you read the quote you just quoted, I allowed for the likelihood that you are merely "blinded by the Right". Actually, I rather favor that explanation. It's just that, if you read the quote you just quoted, you'll note that I don't see much meaningful difference between the two.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,12:34   

Quote
I just want the author's data and reasoning on the topic we were like, you know, actually discussing: media bias.
Just to keep things focussed here: you're trying to demonstrate a systematic liberal bias - at least that's what I'm arguing is nonsense.Your essayist points out that if there is a "media bias", it's a bias toward increasing revenue, not towards advancing any particular political agenda.

My own view is not so exclusively revenue-focussed. I don't see how, for instance, giving Bush a pass on lying us into war, ignoring the Downing Street memo, etc., is good for sales. I suspect it's just lack of spine.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,12:36   

stevestory:
Quote
Wooohoooo! Ghost finally published the Scale-Free Marriage Network Model. (scan scan scan) Crap. He didn't. :-( It's been over a week, and Ghost in the Shell can't come through with the 'compelling' evidence.

Since there's been precious little justification for any liberal beliefs proffered on this blog, I find myself unimpressed with your posturing. But don't worry; I won't ask you to leave - we conservatives can tolerate opposing points of view. It's a civilisation thing - you wouldn't understand.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,12:45   

Bill, so far you have demonstrated—at best—a bias in the media that could be ascribed to liberal motives, in a very restricted area of news coverage. Looking at the sum total of news coverage—local, national, and international—it's virtually impossible to demonstrate a consistent liberal bias, especially in political coverage.

Nevertheless, let's say I grant your thesis in its narrowest form: that there is a "liberal" bias to coverage of violent crime involving minorities (for the sake of this argument, "liberal" is defined as an emphasis on reporting majority-on-minority crime rather than vice versa). But you've still failed to answer a question I've posed three times now: why should I care? Should I think minority cultures in this country are inferior to the majority culture? Should I think they're more dangerous? Should I think minorities should not be allowed into the country? What should I think? I already think the media in this country is a miserable, pathetic joke, so I hope your point is deeper than that.

Your premise is lacking a conclusion, Bill.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,13:59   

Russell:
Quote
Just to keep things focussed here: you're trying to demonstrate a systematic liberal bias - at least that's what I'm arguing is nonsense.Your essayist points out that if there is a "media bias", it's a bias toward increasing revenue, not towards advancing any particular political agenda.

First, I'm talking about a multicultural bias, which isn't restricted to political liberals. Second, I plan on refuting "the media's just in it for the money" argument. For starters, if the "media's just in it for the money", then why do they suppress juicy racial details when their disclosure would only pique public interest? Why doctor scandalous documentaries in such a way to remove their impact? Or is it just the Amurican media that's just trying to make a buck? But then, why do so many newspapers hide the race of a suspect? It seems the excuses are flying:
Quote
Race is often positive news--"The first African American in space" or "The opening of the Filipino-American film festival." But McCormack is trying to make us think more about how to handle the negatives. He points to several studies showing imbalance in the news, with whites shown in a broad range--good, bad, and normal--while people of color are often stereotyped or missing from coverage altogether.

Which brings us back to that mainstay of news reporting: The Crime Story. When people read about the latest white murderer, bank robber, or Enron executive, they typically don't fear the next white guy they pass on the street, because media tells us that most whites are busy doing other things besides mayhem. But reporting minority crime--especially by blacks or Latinos--can add to existing stereotypes and social stigmas.

So what to do? As one white, mid-level news manager angrily said when the question came up, "We're supposed to be journalists, not social workers." Maybe that's why it's taken McCormack six months to draft his guidelines.

McCormack's, journalistic premise, and KRON's current policy, is this: Race as a generic descriptor is rarely relevant to reporting about criminal suspects and should be avoided. "Race is not necessarily descriptive," read the guidelines. "Saying someone is African American, Asian American or Latino tells you what their ethnic background is, not what they look like. Even within the same ethnic group people vary enormously." Race may be handy shorthand for cops, says McCormack, but more often than not it's an almost useless identifier when we are trying to inform the public.
[....]
And there are two key conditions where race may be essential: urgency and proximity. If a white man is running loose RIGHT NOW shooting people in your town, viewers obviously need whatever facts you have. But if the shooting is happening in another state, how does race inform our viewers? Says McCormack, "We should only use skin color if the description is for a suspect in a serious case where the public is at risk, such as murder or rape, and where it is important to catch the criminal as quickly as possible. We should not use it in minor crimes, such as check forgery or petty theft, where there is no violent threat to the public."

I see. The media must protect the public from itself. How noble. And typical.
More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2006,14:06   

Still no answer to my question, Bill? I'm beginning to think you're ducking me…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,03:58   

Quote
Still no answer to my question, Bill? I'm beginning to think you're ducking me…

Ok, let's turn the question around: suppose you uncovered evidence that the media was suppressing hate crimes against gays, blacks, or other minorities. Would you be concerned? Why or why not?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,04:10   

Quote

Since there's been precious little justification for any liberal beliefs proffered on this blog, I find myself unimpressed with your posturing. But don't worry; I won't ask you to leave - we conservatives can tolerate opposing points of view. It's a civilisation thing - you wouldn't understand.


Ghost: I've got a model which proves my point.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: (silence)
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: I'm working on it.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: You're complaining in the wrong thread.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: You're trying to suppress my point.
Me: What's the model?
Ghost: You're posturing.
Me: What's the model?
...

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,05:04   

Sorry, Ghost. You won't slip-slide past this one so easily.

Quote
Oh, man, do I love debating liberals! This is too funny....you guys really think that I would try to distort a source that I linked to?

Well, seeing as that's what you obviously did, what we think is irrelevant, so...

But I guess it's the same logic as with those bogeys you keep posting, to make your posts seem neatly supported: You think that few people will pay enough attention to them to figure it out, and if some do and call you out, you're self-assured enough to think you can work around it. Think again.
Quote
But in case you were wondering, I neglected to quote that part because I don't care about debating side issues such as legal or financial inequities among the races -

Give me a break. Who do you think you're fooling? The part you mention here is three paragraphs down. You deliberately start snipping in the middle of a paragraph, from the exact sentence where the authors start to present their reasoning. Don't insult our intelligence.
Quote
I just want the author's data and reasoning on the topic we were like, you know, actually discussing: media bias.

Yeah, right. Only it's the reasoning of the authors you snipped out: As for the subject we're discussing, it's media liberal bias. Check the thread title, in case you forgot.
Quote
But this doesn't establish motive - it takes other evidence to do that. The point remains the same: the media considers black victims of white bias more newsworthy than the converse.

...Which is not how you presented it. You presented it as proof for liberal bias, period. My "seriously flawed" view is also the authors' view: You cannot accept their work as "well supported" and dismiss their justification as "speculations". Maybe you should take it with them: I believe they have a comments page on that site.

Or, if you were in the least bit honest, you should say something like "This, of course, points to a media bias. Now, the authors argue that the reason behind it is profit; I, however, think it shows a liberal bias because blah blah". But that would mean coming up with actual arguments instead of google trawling, right? You would have to engage your brain.

The fact remains: You were desperately seeking objective support for your liberal bias theory. You stumbled upon this student work, that demonstrated a media bias and presented its reasons for it. It is you who didn't like those reasons, so you snipped them into nonexistence, hoping you'd make us think that such a bias would only be explained as a "liberal" one.

You deliberately tampered with your source, twisting its meaning: And in the world of civilised internet debate, this is not minor misconduct (like your irrelevant links and shifting arguments and moving goalposts and failing to deliver): It's a felony.
Ghost: as far as I'm concerned, you're burned out in this thread, just like in the gay marriage one. You'll have to try real hard to make me take you seriously. Coming up with an actual argument would help: But seeing as you've got your hands full -with Tiktaalik rebuttals and... cannibals (?) and marriage scale-free networks (or is it "family" scale-free networks now? You're an open book, ghost  ;) ), I think I shouldn't hold my breath.


One more thing: Like I said in my first two posts, I entered this debate without having any real opinion. I knew (and still know, I guess) little about the US media: I had no reason not to assume a liberal bias might not exist. Paley, you could have persuaded me.
However, after visiting the sites your links led to, and reading what the wackos who post there say (like that story about the white van), and especially after your dishonest behavior, I'm pretty sure there is no liberal bias in the US media. The fact that there is a racial bias in the media, often used to divert the public's attention from cases of authority abuse and brutality in general, to more sensitive racial discrimination issues, seems more and more plausible.

And guess what: It seems that the actual liberal media agree: That's why, in most cases, they were the ones that stood out and reported all those -undermined by the mainstream media- cases of police brutality in the first place.

Congratulations, Ghost, you've converted me- to the opposite side.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:23   

Faid:
Quote
Sorry, Ghost. You won't slip-slide past this one so easily.

Ummmm....OK.
Quote
Quote  
Oh, man, do I love debating liberals! This is too funny....you guys really think that I would try to distort a source that I linked to?

Well, seeing as that's what you obviously did, what we think is irrelevant, so...

Oh m-m-my goodness! You figured out my master plan of linking to and then deliberately misrepresenting sources! How ever did you catch me?!! I mean, I thought that everyone here was completely illiterate and/or wouldn't be able to click on the blue line! But boy, were you too clever for me!  :D  :D  :D
Quote
But I guess it's the same logic as with those bogeys you keep posting, to make your posts seem neatly supported: You think that few people will pay enough attention to them to figure it out, and if some do and call you out, you're self-assured enough to think you can work around it. Think again.

First, I should stop citing the sources for my ideas. Check.....
Quote
Give me a break. Who do you think you're fooling? The part you mention here is three paragraphs down. You deliberately start snipping in the middle of a paragraph, from the exact sentence where the authors start to present their reasoning. Don't insult our intelligence.

Also, I must quote every argument my source makes, even if I don't think it contributes to the debate. Because, after all, I'm the only one who can double-check for quote-mining by actually reading the articles. Check......
Quote
Yeah, right. Only it's the reasoning of the authors you snipped out: As for the subject we're discussing, it's media liberal bias. Check the thread title, in case you forgot.

And the legal inequities that blacks face in the court system relates to this how......?
Quote
Quote  
But this doesn't establish motive - it takes other evidence to do that. The point remains the same: the media considers black victims of white bias more newsworthy than the converse.

...Which is not how you presented it. You presented it as proof for liberal bias, period.

No, I presented this as excellent evidence that the media underreports minority-on-majority violence. Which it was, and still is. Look, you and Eric were the ones that demanded this type of evidence. So I supplied it. Now you're whining that I didn't present the argument the way you wanted, so this makes me dishonest, so therefore you can reject the conclusions of the study. But that's not how science works. The scientific part of the article involved the data, the methodology behind the data, and the conclusions drawn directly from the data. I'm not interested in the author's opinions on our court system, because the authors weren't studying this issue. And remember, these are students: I trust their counting more than their pontificating. Apparently you would rather have the navel-gazing.
Quote
Or, if you were in the least bit honest, you should say something like "This, of course, points to a media bias. Now, the authors argue that the reason behind it is profit; I, however, think it shows a liberal bias because blah blah". But that would mean coming up with actual arguments instead of google trawling, right? You would have to engage your brain.

Uhhhh....check my last posts, Sherlock. That's exactly what I'm trying to do:
Quote
First, I'm talking about a multicultural bias, which isn't restricted to political liberals. Second, I plan on refuting "the media's just in it for the money" argument. For starters, if the "media's just in it for the money", then why do they suppress juicy racial details when their disclosure would only pique public interest? Why doctor scandalous documentaries in such a way to remove their impact? Or is it just the Amurican media that's just trying to make a buck? But then, why do so many newspapers hide the race of a suspect? It seems the excuses are flying:
[etc. etc.]

So even if you had a point, it's irrelevant now, since I am attempting to address the "racial conflict->extra sales" feedback loop. Maybe you should deal with my arguments instead of my character.
Quote
And guess what: It seems that the actual liberal media agree: That's why, in most cases, they were the ones that stood out and reported all those -undermined by the mainstream media- cases of police brutality in the first place.

Congratulations, Ghost, you've converted me- to the opposite side.

Obviously you haven't been listening. But that's not an MP, that's a YP.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,07:31   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 01 2006,08:58)
Ok, let's turn the question around: suppose you uncovered evidence that the media was suppressing hate crimes against gays, blacks, or other minorities. Would you be concerned? Why or why not?

Well, yeah, I would, Bill. But here's the reason: historically, oppressed minorities in this country have suffered terribly at the hands of the majority. The converse, i.e., majorities suffering terribly at the hands of minorities, has generally not happened. Have whites been systematically been abused by blacks? Have straights been systematically abused by gays?

That's why we call them "oppressed minorities," Bill. Do you, a white Christian male, feel like an oppressed minority? If so, why is that?

If, somehow, the tables were turned, and white people were being enslaved by black people on a regular basis, or straight people were being beaten and killed because of their sexuality by gay people, maybe your indignation would make some sort of sense to me. But that's not happening, so it doesn't make any sense to me.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,08:19   

Well, as I wrote a long ways back, Ghost is primarily concerned about *loss of privilege*. Granting equal rights to those he fears may not affect the rights he has whatsoever, but that's not the problem. The problem is, rights granted to those denied them would eliminate his privileged position. He'd suffer effective equalty.

And as I also wrote, what we're seeing in the media is a reaction to the very privilege Ghost is trying to protect. Legislating privilege generates resentment. Ghost thus demonstrates "science" in action -- if what you're doing leads to the the opposite of what you intend, do more of it.

This gets kind of boring after a while.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:12   

Quote
Well, as I wrote a long ways back, Ghost is primarily concerned about *loss of privilege*. Granting equal rights to those he fears may not affect the rights he has whatsoever, but that's not the problem. The problem is, rights granted to those denied them would eliminate his privileged position. He'd suffer effective equalty.

Sigh.....no, I'd suffer de facto inferiority. For example:

1) There's a (small) danger that I would be pushed to the back of the adoption list
2) The media will not cover crimes committed against me, or at the very least will try to downplay them
3) My group will be demonised by the media and Madison Avenue
4) I will have to be more qualified than gays to get the same job
5) I will have to score higher on standardised tests to get into the college of my choice
6) If I start a business, I will face artificial competition from set-asides
7) If monogender parenting turns out to be a disaster, I will have to pay higher taxes and face more crime
8) I will not be allowed to study #7 unless I reach the "right" conclusions
9) I will lose my right to complain about this, as well as a number of other things
10) If a gay person gets upset with me, he can hoax up a "hate" crime charge and realise that, even if I somehow manage to beat the rap, my life will be ruined anyway (this goes double if I play lacrosse  :D )
11) If I say the wrong thing, I can be fired, even from a government job. Gays, on the other hand, may rank me to the dogs and back and fear no consequences.

Welcome to equality, bubba....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:26   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 01 2006,15:12)
Sigh.....no, I'd suffer de facto inferiority. For example:

1) There's a (small) danger that I would be pushed to the back of the adoption list
2) The media will not cover crimes committed against me, or at the very least will try to downplay them etc. etc. etc.

How are any of these discriminatory practices different from what actual minorities have had to put up with, are putting up with, will continue to put up with?

Which isn't to say discrimination is okay. But frankly, Bill, I have to say I find it amusing to find a member of the top 1% of the heap (a group I also find myself a member of) complaining about how he's so put upon, and how life is so unfair. The victimization act is pretty unseemly when you're better off than 99% of the people on the planet.

I think my advice to you could be summed up like this: get over yourself, dude.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:28   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 01 2006,12:23][/quote]
Quote
Oh m-m-my goodness! You figured out my master plan of linking to and then deliberately misrepresenting sources! How ever did you catch me?!! I mean, I thought that everyone here was completely illiterate and/or wouldn't be able to click on the blue line! But boy, were you too clever for me!  :D  :D  :D

Keep trying to wave it off, Ghost. You're only making yourself look silly. You did it, period.
Quote
First, I should stop citing the sources for my ideas. Check.....

Or maybe you should, you know, start citing sources that actually support them. Because so far, nada.
Quote
Also, I must quote every argument my source makes, even if I don't think it contributes to the debate.

You must quote the arguments your source makes, the way they make them. It's a simple concept: It's called honesty.
Leaving the part that says:
Quote
It is possible that the media has a “vested interest” in covering brutality that could be manipulated into a racially motivated crime. These sensational stories can manipulate the audience and may create increased racial tension throughout the country.[...]

...And immediately ditching the next part of the paragraph:
Quote
 [...]The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.”   Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin.  The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.

  If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background.

Is called twisting an argument by selective quoting, and it's a long way from the aforementioned concept.

Quote
And the legal inequities that blacks face in the court system relates to this how......?

Still playing dumb? You selectively snipped out the reasoning they gave to explain their data, making it seem like they were agreeing with you. The legal part came much later. Denying it won't help: Anyone can go back one page and see what you took out. Or, you know, they can see above.
Quote
Look, you and Eric were the ones that demanded this type of evidence. So I supplied it. Now you're whining that I didn't present the argument the way you wanted, so this makes me dishonest, so therefore you can reject the conclusions of the study.
We demanded (and still demand) evidence of liberal bias. Before I realized your selective quoting, both me and Eric pointed out how your data could be interpreted differently (unknowingly agreeing with what the authors actually argued for). I have to admit that I fell for it: In the beginning, reading your quotes only, I thought the authors were arguing for a liberal bias. You see, it was you who didn't like the conclusions of the study and rejected them, leaving only the part that would point elsewhere. "Vested interest"! I'm sure you were snickering when you decided to keep that in...
Quote
But that's not how science works.

Do you even know how science works? Or scientific reference? Say that I want to support an announcement in a medical journal, that says intramedullary nailing (A) is a dangerous method for treating fractures that should be dropped.
I have difficulty to find any bibliography to support my view, until I find another announcement that shows greater risk of infection of (A) compared to, say, external fixation of the fracture (B) (to all: sorry about the technicals).
Now, the authors argue that all the known benefits that make (A) better than (B) will be valuable if we carefully choose where and when to apply this method, and that hospitals should not be eager to use it, tempted by its higher cost.
I don't like that, so I snip it out. Or perhaps, I leave a tiny bit that says something like "it is foolish to disregard the high risks associated with (A)". Then I present my announcement, with prime mention of this work in my collected data, discussion and bibliography.
Now, do you know what will happen if (when) I'm caught? I will be publicly ridiculed in the medical community, and the authors of the original work will probably sue me.

Don't worry, I don't think anyone will sue you... I think you've got the ridicule thing pretty much covered up, though.
Quote
I'm not interested in the author's opinions on our court system, because the authors weren't studying this issue.

Here we go again... Just drop it, will you? You're not fooling anyone. We can all see everything that you snipped out; don't pretend that was just it.
Quote
And remember, these are students: I trust their counting more than their pontificating. Apparently you would rather have the navel-gazing.

Actually, when discussing a presentation, it's the data that should get more thoroughly examined- as well as their interpretation of it. I already pointed a few things that would have been a subject of debate for their interpretation. Remember that, for both interpretation and deduction of results from the data, the students would (should) have a number of specific data to point to, theirs or from other works, that are ommited or mentioned briefly in their work's summary. You seem to take the first for granted, and think the latter does not exist.
Quote
Uhhhh....check my last posts, Sherlock. That's exactly what I'm trying to do:
First, I'm talking about a multicultural bias, which isn't restricted to political liberals. Second, I plan on refuting "the media's just in it for the money" argument. For starters, if the "media's just in it for the money", then why do they suppress juicy racial details when their disclosure would only pique public interest? Why doctor scandalous documentaries in such a way to remove their impact? Or is it just the Amurican media that's just trying to make a buck? But then, why do so many newspapers hide the race of a suspect? It seems the excuses are flying:
[etc. etc.]

So even if you had a point, it's irrelevant now, since I am attempting to address the "racial conflict->extra sales" feedback loop. Maybe you should deal with my arguments instead of my character.

Why my dear Watson, it seems we might be wrong after all; let us see... hmm... Why yes, you did say that... AFTER we called you out for distorting your source. Before that: well, I guess you were too busy gloating about how you were waving our stained undies in the air with your last post, to bother doing so.

Foiled again, Moriarty.

Oh and, "arguments"? I only see a couple of more bogeys. Some guy "arguing" that the media not reporting the race of two blacks killed by an angry mob of lowlives of undetermined race is somehow evidence of liberal bias, a reporter arguing why his newspapers policy to not mention race is not PC, a link to a reporter saying what the media should stop doing to avoid bias, and finally a refusal of one channel to broadcast a political advertisement that, among other things, was racially charged... in Great Britain. That last one was a real gem, ghost.
I'd ask you how all this leads to "liberal bias" over "exploiting racial panic for profit" but I'm afraid you'll post 3 more irrelevant links for every one you'll try to explain.
Quote
Obviously you haven't been listening. But that's not an MP, that's a YP

Come again? And what about that google search, ghost? I mean, it's what you do best... Especially since you don't do anything else.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,10:33   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 01 2006,15:12)
1) There's a (small) danger that I would be pushed to the back of the adoption list

Oh and, btw, thanks for reminding me... How's the "Family as a hub in a scale-free network" model coming along?  ;)

...You realise that you'll also have to show why divorce did not destroy society, right?  ???

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:02   

Quote
Keep trying to wave it off, Ghost. You're only making yourself look silly. You did it, period.

In your eyes, maybe. I still see otherwise. But let's say you're correct here - God knows I can't prove motivation. The facts remain:

1) The only reason you were able to "prove" my "dishonesty" was by clicking on a link that I provided. So even if I was dishonest (which I dispute), I provided the opportunity to easily check my claims. So basically your complaint is: "I'm angry because you're the dishonest type who would correctly assume that I'd be too lazy to click on a blue line and read your paper!"

Way to sell yourself, Chief.

2) I'm now trying to rectify my "lapse". So why not move on?

3) You still haven't explained the massive discrepancy in news coverage. You've basically waved your hands around the data, spinning one lazy excuse after another, asking for a piece of evidence and then arbitrarily rejecting it, and then trying to shift the debate once you find you can't support your opinion. By the way, where is the evidence for your point of view? All I see is spinning and whining.

Show me your lexus searches. Show me your studies. But you can't, because they don't exist. Face it, you're just jacked because you know I'm right.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,12:17   

I'm trying to think how proving either position would work, even in principle. I'm thinking it would have to work this way:

Bill presents a figure for the total number of news reports of minority-on-majority violence (which he presumably thinks is a smaller number than vice versa);

Faid presents a figure for the total number of news reports of majority-on-minority violence (which he presumably also thinks is a smaller number than vice versa).

Let's say one number is 60% (or 100%, or 200%) bigger. Does that prove anything? No. Because without a handle on the actual number of reportable incidents, how can either side say they've won?

So what you really need is four numbers: 1) the number of maj-on-min crimes; 2) the number of reported maj-on-min crimes; 3) the number of min-on-maj crimes; and 4) the number of reported min-on-maj crimes.

That's just a minimum. After that, you need a detailed analysis of things that are inherently difficult to quantify, e.g., the weight given to the circumstances of interest (was the racial element of the crime of central, or only peripheral, importance to the story?). You might want to look at the prominence of the story (front page, below the fold front page, in the back of the "local" pages, filler at the end of a paragraph, etc.)

In other words, in order to make a reasonably compelling argument, Bill, you're going to need to write a doctoral dissertation. Of course, you could cite someone else's doctoral dissertation, but I'll bet Faid can do the exact same thing. We could go on like this for hundreds of posts, and you still wouldn't really be able to draw a line from your premise to your conclusion...whatever that conclusion turns out to be.

If your conclusion is, the media needs to be less biased, you can stop now. We all think that anyway.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,13:58   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 01 2006,17:02][/quote]
Quote
The only reason you were able to "prove" my "dishonesty" was by clicking on a link that I provided. So even if I was dishonest (which I dispute), I provided the opportunity to easily check my claims. So basically your complaint is: "I'm angry because you're the dishonest type who would correctly assume that I'd be too lazy to click on a blue line and read your paper!"

Heh... Tell you what, Ghost: If you agree you were dishonest, I've no trouble agreeing I was lazy. Glad we got that settled. So, let's move on indeed...
Quote
You still haven't explained the massive discrepancy in news coverage. You've basically waved your hands around the data, spinning one lazy excuse after another, asking for a piece of evidence and then arbitrarily rejecting it, and then trying to shift the debate once you find you can't support your opinion.

Oh, but we did explain it, Ghost, remember? We accepted your data and provided a reason for it- a reason much more plausible than attempting to implicate all the mainstream media in the US in an intricate conspiracy guided by... whom? And guess what, turns out that that's what the authors who came up with the data, studied it in extent (unlike you or us) and presented it thought, too.
What you refer to as hand-waving and lame excuses is actually called reasoning. You should try it sometime.
As for "trying to shift the debate once you find you can't support your opinion", what can I say? It's a good thing my irony meter is still busted from the last time I checked Davescot's posts...
Quote
By the way, where is the evidence for your point of view? All I see is spinning and whining.

Show me your lexus searches. Show me your studies. But you can't, because they don't exist. Face it, you're just jacked because you know I'm right.

Oh now I see how it goes...

GOP: -Hey everyone! Here's my compelling evidence for a liberal bias in US media, just like I promised! I win!

Everyone: -Um, not really.

GOP: -And if you look here, what can you say? How about this? Is it indisputable proof or what?

Everyone: -Er... Not really?

GOP: -If you look here, here and here however, there's no question you'll be left speechless by the amazing amount of irrefutable proof!!!!!1
(dances the jig)

Everyone: -Not really... *yawn*

GOP: -... Tell you what, wiseguys: Why don't you Marxists prove to me there is no liberal bias in the US media? Common, I'm waiting!


...Aaand that concludes our thread, ladies and gentlemen.



PS. You know, you could have still saved this. You could have honestly admitted that distorting your source was uncalled for, and started producing real arguments to support your position... You could have started by addressing what I said about the most hardcore liberal media being the ones to actually report all those police brutality incidents that mainstream media suppressed. I myself have thought of a possible reason for that already (other than the most obvious one, that suppressing those stories does not constitute liberal bias, I mean). We could have put this behind us, and have an interesting debate.
The way things turned out, however, with the only argument you were able to come up with being "well why don't you prove me wrong"  (as if it's us who made unsupportable claims first), I don't see that happening.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,15:03   

Faid:
Quote
Oh, but we did explain it, Ghost, remember? We accepted your data and provided a reason for it- a reason much more plausible than attempting to implicate all the mainstream media in the US in an intricate conspiracy guided by... whom? And guess what, turns out that that's what the authors who came up with the data, studied it in extent (unlike you or us) and presented it thought, too.

You mean the financial motivation?
Quote
It is possible that the media has a “vested interest” in covering brutality that could be manipulated into a racially motivated crime. These sensational stories can manipulate the audience and may create increased racial tension throughout the country. The riots, the violence, and the controversy most likely ensure the newspapers with a continued story to cover. Had the stories dealt with the issue of police brutality, a very serious issue, all of the incidents would have been covered with equal zest. Unfortunately as The Baltimore Sun points out in an editorial on July 30, 2000, “Whether you view them [the police] as the good guys or as a brutal occupation force may depend on where you live and the color of your skin.”   Likewise, whether the media views them [the victims] as good enough to be a story or as an occupational flop may depend on where they lived and the color of their skin.  The media chooses who is significant and who is forgotten based on their race and the sensationalism that their status as a victim can create.

 If the Busch and Jones stories were printed with as much fervor as the ones with racist undertones, the country would probably deal with the problem, ending a juicy bit of news. Because the issue of race is such a sensitive and controversial one, it is possible for the media to exploit it. Such manipulation may increase revenue for the newspapers; increased racial tensions may be the national hidden cost of their attempt to drive up sales. Given the number of articles written on a select few versus the lack of articles on a select racially unmotivated few, the following conclusion is unavoidable. The media creates a racial panic. And the issue of police brutality cannot be adequately voiced with the cacophonous racial noise in the background.

[all emphases mine]

So the authors admit that:
1)  Race plays a role in media crime coverage
2)  The media create a racial panic which they then exploit financially
3)  Their drive to maximise profit only partly explains the discrepancy in news coverage, since the media create some of the sensationalism in the first place

So even if you agree with their unevidenced speculations, you must concede the basic point: the media cover crimes in a racially biased way. Now, it's true that the authors and I disagree on how to weigh each variable; for example, I don't consider the media's drives primarily economic in this case. But so what if it is? After all, slaveowners had an economic motive as well: does that make slavery morally acceptable? I still fail to see how this study helps your argument - the data sure as #### doesn't. But that's why you tried to shift the argument in the first place. Admit it, you and Eric were embarrassed that I could provide the very piece of evidence you demanded. It's OK, we all get clobbered sometimes. Try not to be such a crybaby about it in the future. :p
Quote
GOP: -Hey everyone! Here's my compelling evidence for a liberal bias in US media, just like I promised! I win!

Everyone: -Um, not really.

GOP: -And if you look here, what can you say? How about this? Is it indisputable proof or what?

Everyone: -Er... Not really?

GOP: -If you look here, here and here however, there's no question you'll be left speechless by the amazing amount of irrefutable proof!!!!!1
(dances the jig)

Everyone: -Not really... *yawn*

GOP: -... Tell you what, wiseguys: Why don't you Marxists prove to me there is no liberal bias in the US media? Common, I'm waiting!

Man, I really broke your brain, didn't I? You're bitching because I can back my case up and you can't? I'm not surprised. What does surprise me is your dismay over that fact. After all, if you libs could back any of your ideas up, you wouldn't have to create speech laws to begin with, now would ya?
Quote
...Aaand that concludes our thread, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not surprised that you're leaving - you're obviously incapable of supporting your position.  ;)

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,15:26   

Quote
PS. You know, you could have still saved this. You could have honestly admitted that distorting your source was uncalled for, and started producing real arguments to support your position...


1) I don't admit to what I didn't do. See, this is the common liberal trick known as "claiming the moral high ground". It's a time-tested fallback position: if the conservative has you bested on the facts, try to smear him to put him on the defensive. Faid, I used to be a liberal. Don't you think I can see through this? I'm just surprised you haven't tried the Yenta Plan® already.

2) As you admitted earlier....
Quote
Why my dear Watson, it seems we might be wrong after all; let us see... hmm... Why yes, you did say that... AFTER we called you out for distorting your source. Before that: well, I guess you were too busy gloating about how you were waving our stained undies in the air with your last post, to bother doing so.

....I'm now trying to "fix" my so-called mistake. So can you deal with my argument or not? By the way you keep bringing my character up....I guess not. Unless you consider your lame, evidence-free posturing "reasoning".

So once again: where's the evidence for your position? I mean real evidence, like studies or Lexis-Nexis searches or, well.....anything.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,15:53   

Eric:
Quote
Well, yeah, I would, Bill. But here's the reason: historically, oppressed minorities in this country have suffered terribly at the hands of the majority. The converse, i.e., majorities suffering terribly at the hands of minorities, has generally not happened. Have whites been systematically been abused by blacks? Have straights been systematically abused by gays?

OK, but how long will that argument hold water? I mean, the Nazis tried to wipe the Jews off the face of the planet 50 years ago.....and yet, the Jews have moved on (well, most of them). The media doesn't try to cover up the malfeasance of Jewish individuals when it occurs - they just report it and let the antisemites do what they will. Look at the media coverage of Israel - I see no evidence that they're holding back - ####, Israel gets held to a higher code of behavior than any other country in the world, including Amurica. I don't mind if the media focuses on the Diallos and Shepards - just provide some context for these crimes. But it's too late for that I fear....the apple's rotten to the core. Thank God for the internet.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,16:01   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 01 2006,20:0)
Admit it, you and Eric were embarrassed that I could provide the very piece of evidence you demanded. It's OK, we all get clobbered sometimes. Try not to be such a crybaby about it in the future. <!--emo&:p

Embarrassed, Bill? Embarrassed by what? That you could show bias in the media? That's not exactly news, and not exactly embarrassing. I've never denied that there's plenty of bias in the media (the difference between us appears to be that I acknowledge the bias goes both ways).

Funny, I don't feel particularly clobbered, Bill. I still don't think you've demonstrated there's a consistent liberal slant to the media, even when it comes to racial issues, and you certainly haven't shown me why a media bias in favor of majority-on-minority violence is something to get all up in arms about anyway.

And I think Faid's analysis of the article you linked to is much more of an embarrassment to you than it is to either Faid or me. While the authors' data might agree with your claim, their conclusions certainly don't.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,16:04   

Quote
I don't admit to what I didn't do.

But of course, this isn't what was stated. The statement was that you could have owned up to what you DID do.

Clearly, the statement was wrong. You CANNOT own up. Do you think lying about it fools anyone other than yourself?

This is what cripples any hope of communication here. Distort your material, get called on it, and lie reflexively. Get called on that, and deny that as well.

As I said before, you were a liberal much as creationists "used to be atheists". It's an empty posture. You don't yet seem to realize that things don't magically come true except in your own mind just because you SAY they're true.

So steve's still waiting for the promised model. I'm still waiting for any even remotely rational explanation of how granting equal rights to others costs you yours. I guess it's time to change the subject again.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,16:19   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 01 2006,20:53)
OK, but how long will that argument hold water? I mean, the Nazis tried to wipe the Jews off the face of the planet 50 years ago.....

It'll hold water forever, Bill. Violence and oppression perpetrated by the dominant culture against a minority underclass will always be more newsworthy in a free society. If, 200 years from now, you read the papers (the Internet will be back on papers by then), you'll find that violence perpetrated by the Spanish-speaking Hispanic majority against the minority (say, 15% of the population?) white Christian culture is more  newsworthy than vice versa.

And Oops! You did it again! you teen idol you. You provided an example that proves my point for me.

Nazi oppression of Jews was (or should have been) more newsworthy in the 1930s than Jewish violence against Germans. Today, violence and oppression perpetrated by Israelis (the dominant culture) against Palestinians (the minority underclass) is more newsworthy than vice versa. Or, maybe not. After all, it's not like Palestinian violence against Israelis exactly goes unreported in the U.S. media. Hmm...maybe there are quite a few problems with your thesis, Bill...

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,16:47   

Who's leaving, Ghost? I wouldn't miss watching your pathetic attempts to save face for the world. I'm just through taking you seriously.

Quote
So even if you agree with their unevidenced speculations, you must concede the basic point: the media cover crimes in a racially biased way

Whoo hoo we agree! Now, about that "liberal" thing...
Quote
After all, slaveowners had an economic motive as well: does that make slavery morally acceptable?

I see. That makes my argument that, when you use racial panic to make a buck, it makes racial panic morally acceptable, go down the drain, I guess. Curses!
(BTW: I like the "as well" bit-heh)
Quote
I still fail to see how this study helps your argument - the data sure as #### doesn't.

You mean the data of the work that claims a racial bias for profit do not support a racial bias for profit?  Well, like I said, maybe you should take it with the authors... But I'd be happy if you demonstrate it here. Fat chance, I know.
Quote
But that's why you tried to shift the argument in the first place.

You're right, I deserved my clobbering: I shouldn't start arguing for an *undefined* racial bias when I had promised I'd deliver proof for a liberal bias... No wait, that was you.
Quote
Man, I really broke your brain, didn't I? You're bitching because I can back my case up and you can't?
Oh, you broke my brain alright, Ghost. Just now. *tilt* :0  :D

So! you ready to support your claims using actual arguments? You can start from what I previously said about hardcore liberal media being the ones to actually report all those "suppressed by the liberal media" cases of police brutality. I can give you a few hints to help you along the way, but you'll have to do most of it yourself.

Or you can simply keep this charade up and let your immaturity shine through with each post you make. Idontcare.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2006,17:00   

Quote
I don't admit to what I didn't do

Then you must show that you didn't do it. But since you did it, well... You tell me.
Quote
See, this is the common liberal trick known as blah blah blah

And this is a common internet trick <edit: also a politician's one- no offense, Ghost...:)> known as labelling practices (not sure about the term in english, sorry). When you cannot defend yourself against accusations, claim this is a typical tactic the liberals/conservatives/evolutionists/christians/whatever use to smear their opponents. It's got a name, therefore it must be true, roight Ghost?
Quote
As you admitted <edit: admitted?> earlier....
Why my dear Watson, it seems we might be wrong after all; let us see... hmm... Why yes, you did say that... AFTER we called you out for distorting your source. Before that: well, I guess you were too busy gloating about how you were waving our stained undies in the air with your last post, to bother doing so.

....I'm now trying to "fix" my so-called mistake

So, you're asking me to accept your apology, although you have not apologised: Just another way of saying "Let's not dwell on that". Whatever.

Quote
2. So can you deal with my argument or not? By the way you keep bringing my character up....I guess not.

I will, once you tell me what it is, exactly. As for your character... What?
Quote
Unless you consider your lame, evidence-free posturing "reasoning".

*Even* If that were true, Not reasoning at all and google trawling is way lamer, and deep down you know it.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,08:15   

Faid:
Quote
Then you must show that you didn't do it. But since you did it, well... You tell me.

OK, even though it wasn't a deliberate attempt to quote-mine, I apologise for snipping out some of the author's explanations. Whatever the intentions, I distorted the author's meaning. I'm sorry. Now, will you address my earlier points? Here they are:
Quote
So the authors admit that:
1)  Race plays a role in media crime coverage
2)  The media create a racial panic which they then exploit financially
3)  Their drive to maximise profit only partly explains the discrepancy in news coverage, since the media create some of the sensationalism in the first place

So even if you agree with their unevidenced speculations, you must concede the basic point: the media cover crimes in a racially biased way.


Will you, Russell, and Eric clearly concede that the media underreport minority-on-majority violence? I realise that some of you think you have already admitted this, but humor me. Just a short statement like, "I agree that the media underreport minority-on-majority crimes, and part of this is due to race." If, on the other hand, you still contest this, please point out with which part of the statement you disagree. Please be brief and clear.
Quote
*Even* If that were true, Not reasoning at all and google trawling is way lamer, and deep down you know it.

OK, here's your chance to shine. Just don't forget to honor the above request.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,08:40   

Quote
I don't mind if the media focuses on the Diallos and Shepards - just provide some context for these crimes.
Like the context you've provided here, you mean? All the min-on-maj crime that you contend is under-reported? Or do you mean context specifically of the Diallo and Shepard cases - mitigating circumstances etc?
Quote
But it's too late for that I fear....the apple's rotten to the core. Thank God for the internet.
Well, indeed. Now you can find out The Real Deal, from such reliable and non-agenda driven  sources as... WorldNetDaily.

Quote
Will you, Russell, and Eric clearly concede that the media underreport minority-on-majority violence...and part of this is due to race?
I concede it's possible. First we'd have to establish some definitions:

What does "underreport" mean? Does it mean covering all or most majority on minority crime, while covering little or no minority on majority crime?

Does it mean covering a fraction of both categories, but - recognizing that there will always be space and time limits to what fraction of misdeeds are covered - that media often give majority on minority crime more newsworthiness points?

Then, we'd have to weigh the seriousness of the misdeeds being compared. I would say most items on your list just don't rack up as many newsworthiness points as the notorious majority-on-minority crimes you're trying to compare them to. Come to think of it, I don't think any of them do.

But here's one that did: the Central Park Jogger case. I keep trying to get you to comment on that. Do you think that was an aberration? Do you think the press did itself proud there? If not, how might they have done a better job?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,09:03   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 02 2006,13:15)
Will you, Russell, and Eric clearly concede that the media underreport minority-on-majority violence? I realise that some of you think you have already admitted this, but humor me. Just a short statement like, "I agree that the media underreport minority-on-majority crimes, and part of this is due to race." If, on the other hand, you still contest this, please point out with which part of the statement you disagree. Please be brief and clear.

Here's the problem with such a concession, Bill. If I conceded that the media under-report min-on-maj crime, I'd have to know that there is min-on-maj crime out there that is actually not reported. How would I know that? Even if it's true that there are more stories of maj-on-min crime than vice versa, couldn't it be the case that there simply is less min-on-maj crime to report in the first place?

Look: it may be true that the media under-report min-on-maj crime. You certainly haven't established that, but even if you had, I'd still maintain that the reasons for that may have nothing to do with racial discrimination (remember the Nazi-Jew/Israeli-Palestinian thing?) It's almost certainly true that the media emphasize maj-on-min crime, but the reasons for that seem to be good and proper to me. That the reasons may be "due to race" seems irrelevant, unless you equate being aware of the existence of race with being racist. I mean, I don't think anyone's contending that race doesn't exist.

And I still don't know exactly what your point is here, Bill. Even if it's true that the media under-report min-on-maj crime, what do you think should be done about that, other than that the media should report more min-on-maj crime. What social ill would that fix?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,09:40   

Quote
Like the context you've provided here, you mean? All the min-on-maj crime that you contend is under-reported?

Well, let's take the Diallo shooting for instance. Would it have killed the media to also report the Haggerty case? If nothing else, the Haggerty story shows that Diallo-like overreactions are possible even if the suspect and cop belong to the same race. And don't forget the other victims:
Quote
A comparison on the coverage of five recent cases: Patrick Dorismond, Amadou Diallo, Timothy Thomas, Thomas Jones, and Gideon Busch clearly reveals the role that race plays in the media’s selection of cases portrayed in the United States. Each one of the five individuals stated above was a victim of police overstepping and abusing their authority and each case has been referred to as an example of police brutality. While the cases share a common thread, their differences might be more important to note. Dorismond, Diallo, and Thomas were Black men brutalized by White police officers, Busch was White and was shot by White officers, and Jones is Black and was abused by a group of mostly Black officers. The media tends to focus on racism as the sole reason for the abuse of Diallo, Dorismond, and Thomas.

I can't see how a halfway responsible media would give the Diallo case saturation coverage, with inflammatory editorials about "racist" cops, when they have evidence that paints a different picture. And notice that the coverage was directly proportional to the number of white cops present (not to mention the dramatic fall-off when the victim was White).
Quote
Quote  
Will you, Russell, and Eric clearly concede that the media underreport minority-on-majority violence...and part of this is due to race?
I concede it's possible. First we'd have to establish some definitions:

What does "underreport" mean? Does it mean covering all or most majority on minority crime, while covering little or no minority on majority crime?

How about reporting the crimes in proportion to the frequency of their occurrence? Once again:
Quote
Let us examine these claims under the light of what the facts actually show. In 1999, lawenforcement agencies nationwide reported a total of 7,876 hate crimes to the FBI, of which 4,295 (or 55 percent) were motivated by racial bias. Because some of those victimizations involved more than one offense (e.g., assault and robbery), the 4,295 incidents actually encompassed 5,240 separate offenses. If we exclude all racially motivated offenses whose perpetrators are categorized as being of "unknown race," and focus specifically on those offenses definitely involving both blacks and whites, we find that blacks were victims of 2,030 racially motivated offenses committed by whites, while whites were victims of 524 racially motivated offenses committed by blacks. Thus whites were responsible for 79.5 percent of these interracial hate crimes, and blacks 20.5 percent.

While this may appear to support the popular assertion that whites are likelier than blacks to commit hate crimes, we must remember that the total population of nonHispanic whites is about 6 times larger than the total population of nonHispanic blacks. When we factor this population disparity into the equation, we find that the "average" black is actually about 50 percent likelier than his or her white counterpart to commit what is classified as a racially motivated hate crime. Because this fact so radically contradicts most Americans’ prevailing worldview, one would think it might be big news deemed worthy of discussion by activists and academics alike. But in fact these are among the most underpublicized numbers in all of criminal justice.

Another vital fact to consider is that FBI hatecrime statistics list "Hispanics" as a category of victims (of crimes motivated by ethnicity or national origin), but not as a category of offenders. Instead, Hispanic offenders are lumped together with whites. In other words, the current hatecrime classification system allows for Hispanics to be counted as victims of hate crimes, but never as perpetrators of such crimes. This, of course, artificially inflates the share of hate crimes committed by "whites."
[....]
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. Yet although blackperpetrated interracial crimes outnumbered whiteperpetrated interracial crimes by a ratio of about 7.2 to 1, the official hatecrime statistics showed white offenders outnumbering black offenders by a 4 to 1 margin. Put another way, about 1 out of every 45 whiteonblack attacks is classified as a hate crime, while the corresponding fraction for blackonwhite attacks is an astounding 1 out of 1,254.

[my emp]


Hey, here's a story for ya: with their "hispanic" category fudging, the government is actively defaming an entire race! Think that'll sell a few copies of the local fishwrap?
Quote
Then, we'd have to weigh the seriousness of the misdeeds being compared. I would say most items on your list just don't rack up as many newsworthiness points as the notorious majority-on-minority crimes you're trying to compare them to. Come to think of it, I don't think any of them do.

But here's one that did: the Central Park Jogger case. I keep trying to get you to comment on that. Do you think that was an aberration? Do you think the press did itself proud there? If not, how might they have done a better job?

OK, we'll discuss the CPJ case, but promise me that you'll deal with my Hammerhead Hagan.  :D

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,09:54   

GOP,

You know you're fighting an uphill battle when the "liberals" maintain no media bias even though upwards of 70% of American journalists self-identify as "liberals."  

To the "scientists," this salient fact is evidence of nothing but objectivity.  LOL!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,09:55   

Okay, Bill. One more time: what are the social consequences of the racially-biased "liberal" media's failure to give equal time to minority-on-majority crime? We know what the remedy would be, but the question is, what is it a remedy for?

After we get an answer to that, perhaps we could move onto a really important topic, say, how the conservative bias of the media leads to things like aggressive war, which kills tens of thousands of people; what the social consequences of that bias are; and what should be done about it?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,10:04   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 02 2006,14:54)
You know you're fighting an uphill battle when the "liberals" maintain no media bias even though upwards of 70% of American journalists self-identify as "liberals."

Thordaddy, you're an idiot.

No liberal (or conservative, for that matter) is saying there's no bias in the media. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

And if you think you can prove there's a "liberal" bias in the media, you're going to have to get around the inconvenient fact that by March of 2003, almost 85% of Americans thought some or all of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis (you wouldn't be part of that 85%, would you?).

Do you suppose that erroneous belief can be ascribed to liberal bias in the media?

Anyone care to bet on how many times Thordaddy whips out his irrelevant "70%" statistic, over and over again, as if saying it actually means something?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,10:10   

ericmurphy asks,

Quote
Do you suppose that erroneous belief can be ascribed to liberal bias in the media?


Yes... the "liberal" media has shown the utmost reluctance to describe who it is exactly that we are at war with, namely, Muslim fanatics.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,10:29   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 02 2006,15:10)
ericmurphy asks,

Quote
Do you suppose that erroneous belief can be ascribed to liberal bias in the media?


Yes... the "liberal" media has shown the utmost reluctance to describe who it is exactly that we are at war with, namely, Muslim fanatics.

So the "liberal" media is responsible for getting the American public to back a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the U.S. or its allies, based on false allegations of involvement with the September 11 attacks, and false allegations of WMDs, including nuclear weapons?

Well, the "media" sure is. But the "liberal" media? What are you, smoking crack?

Did we start a war with Iraq because Iraq was a hotbed of "Muslim fanatics"? Funny, I haven't seen any hesitation on the part of the "liberal" media to reinforce the notion that all Muslims are "fanatics."

Thordaddy, do you have a different definition of "liberal" from the one the rest of us have?

As usual, your posts are reinforcing my impression of your vacuity.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,10:47   

Quote
OK, even though it wasn't a deliberate attempt to quote-mine, I apologise for snipping out some of the author's explanations. Whatever the intentions, I distorted the author's meaning. I'm sorry. Now, will you address my earlier points?


In deed I will, again. Here goes:

Quote
1)  Race plays a role in media crime coverage

Sadly, yes.
Quote
2)  The media create a racial panic which they then exploit financially

Seems extremely likely.
Quote
3)  Their drive to maximise profit only partly explains the discrepancy in news coverage, since the media create some of the sensationalism in the first place

Er... No? I think? I'm not sure what you mean here... I believe that both exploitation of sensationlism in racial issues and creation of it by the media is done for high audience rates and subsequent profit. As is with every other kind of "panic" the media often exploit -even blow out of proportion. That does not mean the issues behind them are not real; it means the media try to squeeze even the last dime out of them.

Quote
So even if you agree with their unevidenced speculations

neither of us know whether it's "unevidenced", since we don't have access to their data. Like I said, I also wanted to see their reasoning in comparing and examining the data in some cases that do not seem equal- as potential for media coverage is concerned- but there's no way to know.
Quote
you must concede the basic point: the media cover crimes in a racially biased way.

To that, I wholeheartedly agree. Like I did 30 posts ago.
Here is what I said when I read your source:

Quote
But I can assume they did alright. Now, what was demonstrated? that the media's eye gets a glint whenever racism rears its ugly head. Of course, racism sells: Living in Greece, I know that firsthand. How does that demonstrate a liberal bias, That's for you to explain.

[Tell you what: Go back to your Google search, only this time, instead of looking how many of the media stood out by referring to all the less-covered police brutality incidents, check out what kind of media (newspapers, magazines, sites) they were (and I mean actually report the incidents, not use them in retrospect to argue for biased media).
...See? Now that's liberal.]


So... I guess it's back to you?


PS. I edited this to prevent multiple posts and I know I'm repeating myself now, but here goes:
Quote
Well, let's take the Diallo shooting for instance. Would it have killed the media to also report the Haggerty case? If nothing else, the Haggerty story shows that Diallo-like overreactions are possible even if the suspect and cop belong to the same race.

That is unfortunately true. But, like I said, The media that reported this case more vigorously were the most liberal ones: Most of those argued that police brutality and authority abuse has no color, and attention should be drawn to that by the mainstream media, not to the race of the policemen to take advantage of the people's sensitivity in racial issues.
So, once again, how does undermining that incident by the mainstream media constitute a liberal bias?
(Oh and, btw, I couldn't find any conservative media, site or blog that did not refer to this case, not to report it, but in retrospect, to argue for a liberal bias. But it's true I was not that motivated in my search...)

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,10:47   

ericmurphy,

My definition of a "liberal" is you.  Everything you've said has been the mantra of the international "liberal" media for some 3 years now.  "No WMDs," and "No ties to Al Qaida" are the "liberal" talking points that we have heard endlessly for years.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:10   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 02 2006,15:47)
ericmurphy,

My definition of a "liberal" is you.  Everything you've said has been the mantra of the international "liberal" media for some 3 years now.  "No WMDs," and "No ties to Al Qaida" are the "liberal" talking points that we have heard endlessly for years.

Except when we heard, "lots of WMDs, lots of ties to al Qaeda, lots of flowers for our troops when we invade their country and occupy their cities."

Where did we hear that, Thordaddy? We heard it from the media. The "liberal" media.

I, personally, was saying there were no WMDs (or at least no evidence of their existence) and no ties to al Qaeda long before it was showing up in the media, "liberal" or otherwise.

We're hearing the same thing now from the media, Thordaddy, because it's true. You can call that a "mantra" if you want, but presumably you expect the media to report the truth, even if the truth is "liberal," don't you?

You could claim that I personally am liberal, and you'd be right. (You could also admit that I was right when I said those things, and you'd be right to admit it).

But you'd be wrong to say there's a consistent, systemic "liberal" bias to the media, because it ain't there.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:16   

Quote
Well, let's take the Diallo shooting for instance. Would it have killed the media to also report the Haggerty case?
OK. Let's.
From your favorite reliable and non-agenda driven source "FrontPage Magazine":
Quote
According to one account from the March 18, 2000 Chicago Sun-Times:

“Haggerty… was riding with Raymond Smith when partners Williams and Daniels stopped Smith's car…after he double-parked to talk to friends.

Smith suddenly drove off, and the chase paused at 95th and Cottage Grove, where Daniels, Williams and Wilson fired at Smith's Oldsmobile Cutlass.

Daniels told the police board she was standing on the side of the car when she saw a "silvery object" rise slowly as Haggerty talked on a cell phone. Smith already was out of the car and Daniels said she yelled at Haggerty to exit. Daniels said she fired when she saw Haggerty turn toward her. A padlock — the silvery object — was found on the floor.


Diallo: man on foot cornered by four cops in an apartment lobby.
Haggerty: woman - one of two suspects being approached by two cops after a car chase - a car chase the suspects led the cops on even after the cops shot at the car, suggesting they should be taken seriously.

Diallo: object mistaken for gun - wallet.
Haggerty: object mistaken for gun - "silvery" padlock.

Diallo: shot 41 times
Haggerty: shot once, so far as I can tell

All in all, I don't think these cases are all that comparable.

Quote
If nothing else, the Haggerty story shows that Diallo-like overreactions are possible even if the suspect and cop belong to the same race.
I don't believe the degree of overreaction is demonstrated. In fact, in light of the facts, I'm not sure the Chicago officers' actions could be called an overreaction at all.
Quote
I can't see how a halfway responsible media would give the Diallo case saturation coverage, with inflammatory editorials about "racist" cops, when they have evidence that paints a different picture.
Well, I'd have to see the editorials you're complaining about before forming an opinion. Also, we're trying to maintain a distinction, are we not? between editorials and coverage. Editorials are supposed to be opinion. But aside from that, what evidence are you referring to? The fact that police shot Haggerty? What evidence helps us understand why 41 shots need to be fired?  I can't see a halfway responsible medium not posing that question.


P.S. I'm going to ignore Thormoron here. I suggest others do the same.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:27   

Quote

But you'd be wrong to say there's a consistent, systemic "liberal" bias to the media, because it ain't there.
I'd say there's a slight liberal bias to the media. But so what? As you can see from Ghost in the Shell's other posts, he imagines hysterical effects from insignificant causes. Among people like Ghost, gays and the media are humongous wrecking crews, covering America in destruction and ruin. I even saw one Ghost-type, at ProfessorBainbridge's site, blame Hurricane Katrina on the media. The media, you see, had failed to warn people as aggressively as it should have. They're people wearing religious and political blinders, who will refuse to see your point, and it's stupid to argue with them.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:33   

stevestory,

I commend you for at least a smidgeon of honesty.  No one can actually argue that a 70-plus % of journalists self-identifying as "liberals" is evidence of "nothing" in the media.  Afterall, these same people will argue that a 48% representation of woman in college sports or a 2% representation of blacks in CEO positions is a clear-cut indication of sexism and racism, respectively.

Looks like the bean-counters aren't being very consistent.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:41   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 02 2006,16:33)
stevestory,

I commend you for at least a smidgeon of honesty.  No one can actually argue that a 70-plus % of journalists self-identifying as "liberals" is evidence of "nothing" in the media.

At risk of ignoring salutory advice, I'm going to respond to Thordaddy anyway, in hopes that I won't hear this stupid 70% statistic repeated over and over again.

Thordaddy, are you of the opinion that any journalist who says he or she is either liberal or conservative is incapable of objective reporting? I asked this question days ago, and you failed to respond.  Merely stating that 70% of the journalists out there self-report themselves as liberal does not equate to 70% of the reporting being liberally-biased.

There's no connection between the proportion of journalists who claim to be "liberal" and the African-American representation among Fortune 500 companies, unless you assume that a journalist is incapable of objective reporting.

I've been over this with you before, but of course that didn't matter. You act like I never said anything about it. Imagine my surprise.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:42   

Quote
They're people wearing religious and political blinders, who will refuse to see your point, and it's stupid to argue with them.
True enough, if the point is to persuade them, or get them to see the error or their ways. But some of us enjoy the sport of exposing the flaws in the argument. I compare it to the the pleasure of solving sudoku puzzles in the daily newspaper.

(Engaging Thormoron, on the other hand, would be more equivalent to solving puzzles in "Highlights for Children")

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,11:50   

yeah, I should have specified I meant it was stupid to argue with them for the purpose of convincing them. I understand there are other reasons one might do so.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,12:31   

Faid:
First, thanks for giving me a straight answer. This helps the discussion enormously.
Quote
That is unfortunately true. But, like I said, The media that reported this case more vigorously were the most liberal ones: Most of those argued that police brutality and authority abuse has no color, and attention should be drawn to that by the mainstream media, not to the race of the policemen to take advantage of the people's sensitivity in racial issues.

I have to admit that I'm confused here. The only media that reported the Haggerty case, to my knowledge, were the local Chicago outlets. (Although there were probably scattered stories in some national newspapers). Which liberal media are you discussing?
Quote
So, once again, how does undermining that incident by the mainstream media constitute a liberal bias?
(Oh and, btw, I couldn't find any conservative media, site or blog that did not refer to this case, not to report it, but in retrospect, to argue for a liberal bias. But it's true I was not that motivated in my search...)

Once again, I am arguing for a multicultural bias, which overlaps imperfectly with a liberal bias. So I expect Faux News to undercover as well.

Russell:
Quote
Diallo: man on foot cornered by four cops in an apartment lobby.
Haggerty: woman - one of two suspects being approached by two cops after a car chase - a car chase the suspects led the cops on even after the cops shot at the car, suggesting they should be taken seriously.

Diallo: object mistaken for gun - wallet.
Haggerty: object mistaken for gun - "silvery" padlock.

Diallo: shot 41 times
Haggerty: shot once, so far as I can tell

All in all, I don't think these cases are all that comparable.

When you're right, you're right:

Diallo: The cops claimed that they believed one of their partners had been shot.

Quote
The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands." As the suspect reached into his jacket, Officer Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo and during the burst Officer McMellon fell down the steps, appearing to be shot. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet. McMellon had not been shot, but had merely tripped while backing down the stairs.

Haggerty: The cops made no such claim.

Diallo: Didn't respond to the officer's command and reached into his jacket (not that it's his fault - but how were the cops supposed to know he couldn't speak English?)
Haggerty: Raised hand slowly in air with cell-phone in hand (the "shiny padlock" defense was disputed by several witnesses)

Diallo: Resembled a serial rapist
Haggerty:Did not resemble a rapist

Diallo: Immigrant (shouldn't matter to readers, but does)
Haggerty: 100% Amurican

and last but not least:

Diallo: Everyone knows how many times he got shot, down to the last blank
Haggerty: Nobody outside of Chicago knew that she even got shot

We can go on like this forever. No cases are ever precisely alike, but the fact remains that Diallo got saturation coverage while Haggerty didn't get much, if any, national coverage. But if you're going to argue that Haggerty didn't deserve coverage due to extenuating circumstances, then may I submit the Rodney King case for inspection. I mean, you got a criminal, possibly high on angel dust, leading cops on a high-speed chase, violently resisting arrest, tossing officers like rag dolls, eating a taser shot like cornflakes, and who......is still with us, unlike Haggerty. Gee, with the 60+ murders every day, and with cops shooting people left and right, how ever did the national media find time in their precious schedule to saturate-cover a beating, even a savage one? I mean, it's not like anyone died, so by your "reasoning" it shouldn't have even made the national press, krrrect?
Quote
I don't believe the degree of overreaction is demonstrated. In fact, in light of the facts, I'm not sure the Chicago officers' actions could be called an overreaction at all.

Some would beg to differ witcha. And unlike you, they'd be willing to put their money where their mouth is.*


*And before anyone argues about Chicago "hedging" against the $100 million lawsuit, it's unlikely that the amount would have survived a trial & appeal even if she won, which according to Russell probably wouldn't happen anyway.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,13:02   

ericmurphy:
Quote
Okay, Bill. One more time: what are the social consequences of the racially-biased "liberal" media's failure to give equal time to minority-on-majority crime? We know what the remedy would be, but the question is, what is it a remedy for?

What failure? According to your response.....
Quote
Here's the problem with such a concession, Bill. If I conceded that the media under-report min-on-maj crime, I'd have to know that there is min-on-maj crime out there that is actually not reported. How would I know that? Even if it's true that there are more stories of maj-on-min crime than vice versa, couldn't it be the case that there simply is less min-on-maj crime to report in the first place?

Look: it may be true that the media under-report min-on-maj crime. You certainly haven't established that, but even if you had, I'd still maintain that the reasons for that may have nothing to do with racial discrimination (remember the Nazi-Jew/Israeli-Palestinian thing?) It's almost certainly true that the media emphasize maj-on-min crime, but the reasons for that seem to be good and proper to me. That the reasons may be "due to race" seems irrelevant, unless you equate being aware of the existence of race with being racist. I mean, I don't think anyone's contending that race doesn't exist.

.....there is no failure (oh, except for a wee little overemphasis now and again).  ;) You want me to discuss the ramifications of an event that you deny? Thanks, but no thanks. It's hard enough to get everyone to agree on the facts. ("Paley - define 'facts'. Then, define 'agree'. And what was your argument again? Oh, and before you tell us, please support your argument. But not with the internet - that's a breach of etiquette. And not with any books and journals that would force us to get off of our fat a$$es and check your sources. So support it. Not with that guy - he's a nut. We can't argue with his facts - but he's a nut. No, dummy, that study is overrturned because the authors explained it with evidence that they didn't put in their report. Gee, quit being dishonest. So what was your argument again? And remember, it's against liberalism only. I don't care what you said in another thread and what you contine to claim, we made up a thread title that has the word "liberal" in it, so by God you'll stick to the argument we made just for you, you ungrateful troll. Which you didn't even support. And was...... what, again?")

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D

And people wonder why conservatives are so angry......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,13:20   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 02 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
What failure? According to your response.....
.....there is no failure (oh, except for a wee little overemphasis now and again).

And people wonder why conservatives are so angry......

What's so hard about this question, Bill: If you're right, and there is a "multicultural" bias in the media, which leads to under-reporting of minority-on-majority crime, why is this something we should be concerned about? Why does this particular fault of the media need to be remedied, when so many other vastly more destructive shortcomings evidently don't?

Are you saying you can't tell me why you think this problem is serious until I admit there's a problem?

I have no particular problem with accepting that the media may over-emphasize majority-on-minority crime, and I've already given you a reason why this would be so. But you still haven't told me why this is so important to you.

Okay, I guess the only way I'm going to get an answer to my question is this way: "Okay, Bill. I accept your claim that the media under-reports minority-on-majority crime, and the reason is 'due to race' (whatever that means)."

Now, will you mind telling me why I should be alarmed by this development?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,13:24   

Quote (ericmurphy @ May 02 2006,16:10)
...
I, personally, was saying there were no WMDs (or at least no evidence of their existence) and no ties to al Qaeda long before it was showing up in the media, "liberal" or otherwise...

Can't say I agree with that particular point.

Iraq had used WMDs several times in the past. Chemical weapons were used by Iraq in the war with Iran and against Iraqi uprisings both in the north and south of Iraq.

UNSCOM was met with repeated non-cooperation in doing it's job.

I do agree that links between Iraq and the 911 atacks was very dodgy.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,13:44   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ May 02 2006,18:24)
Can't say I agree with that particular point.

Iraq had used WMDs several times in the past. Chemical weapons were used by Iraq in the war with Iran and against Iraqi uprisings both in the north and south of Iraq.

UNSCOM was met with repeated non-cooperation in doing it's job.

Long before 2002 (when the Bush administration started really pushing the idea of invading Iraq) or even early 2001 (when the Bush administration started exploring the possibility of invading Iraq), there were no appreciable amounts of WMDs in Iraq. According to Scott Ritter, who was actually in Iraq, who worked with UNSCOM in verifying Iraq's disarmament, 90% or more of Iraq's unconventional weapons capability had been destroyed by 1995. Kamel Hussein had also informed the CIA that he had personally ordered the destruction of Iraq's unconventional weapons capability in 1995.

No one denies that Iraq once possessed WMDs. No one denied that Iraq was interested in obtaining WMDs. But that's not what the administration was arguing. The administration was arguing that Iraq was in actual possession, in 2003, of not just unconventional weapons, but of nuclear weapons, and the "liberal" media not only did not contradict this position, but actively supported it, via reporters like Judith Miller who, lest it be forgot, worked for the New York Times.

In 2003, George Bush claimed, to universal astonishment, that Saddam Hussein had refused to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into the country in late 2002. Walter Pincus, of the Washington Post, noted that this statement "appeared to be contradicted" by the fact that UNMOVIC inspectors had entered Iraq in 2002, and were still there in March 2003, when the Bush administration advised them to evacuate in anticipation of the onset of armed hostilities.

Does that sound like liberal bias in the media to you?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,13:53   

Ya know, Ghosty, if you don't start reading with a little more comprehension than Thordudy, I'm going to have to consign you the same bin: too stupid to argue with. Here's what I mean.
Quote
... the fact remains that Diallo got saturation coverage while Haggerty didn't get much, if any
How often do you suppose people get shot when, after resisting arrest by leading cops on a car chase, the cop mistakes an unwise move for reaching for a gun? What fraction of those cases do you suppose you hear about? Suppose Diallo had been shot once by one cop, when the cop mistook reaching for a wallet for reaching for a gun. Do you suppose that would have been national news? I'm guessing no.

But, just for the record, I don't think the fact that the victim was black and the cops all white was immaterial to the story. Do you?

Quote
But if you're going to argue that Haggerty didn't deserve coverage due to extenuating circumstances, then may I submit the Rodney King case for inspection.
First of all, the Rodney King story would not be a story at all if there were not an extremely disturbing videotape recording of it. That pretty much lays to rest any relevance of the comparison right there. If there were a videotape of the Haggerty incident, I don't know, but I suspect it would look a lot more like a cop making the kinds of snap judgment call that comes with the job than the Rodney King incident did. And again, you seem to be ignoring the point that I keep making: the Rodney King incident is a classic example of a media-public positive feedback loop. Do you really wonder why the public reaction to the Haggerty incident is less? Do you think that's the fault of the news media?

Quote
I mean, it's not like anyone died, so by your "reasoning" it shouldn't have even made the national press, krrrect?
So, you have deduced from what I've written, that I think nothing less than a homicide merits newsworthiness? Pardon my saying so, but that would require your either being really dumb, or intentionally misreading.

Now, here's an example of really obnoxious arguing. I wrote:
Quote
I don't believe the degree of overreaction is demonstrated. In fact, in light of the facts, I'm not sure the Chicago officers' actions could be called an overreaction at all.
to which the GhostMan responded:
Quote
Some would beg to differ witcha. And unlike you, they'd be willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Look, dipwad*, when I say "I'm not sure" it reflects the fact that there's not a whole lot of information I have to go on here. You seem to be implying that I'm making the case that the police actions in this incident were entirely by the book and beyond question. And that not "putting my money where my mouth is" (or isn't as the case may be) is somehow pusillanimous.
Quote
...it's unlikely that the amount would have survived a trial & appeal even if she won, which according to Russell probably wouldn't happen anyway.
Why don't you restrict yourself to addressing what I actually write? Why do you find it necessary to invent fictional opinions to argue against?

*It's with some hesitation that I devolve to this kind of personal insult. But not without reason. I don't believe the kind of misreading documented here can be taken as benign sloppiness, and I want to communicate that that really pisses me off. If that's your goal - great. But I think you make yourself look pretty bad in the process.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,14:12   

Russell:
Quote
How often do you suppose people get shot when, after resisting arrest by leading cops on a car chase, the cop mistakes an unwise move for reaching for a gun? What fraction of those cases do you suppose you hear about? Suppose Diallo had been shot once by one cop, when the cop mistook reaching for a wallet for reaching for a gun. Do you suppose that would have been national news? I'm guessing no.

Funny, that sounds a lot like the Diallo shooting, except in the Diallo shooting, one of the cops shouted, "Gun!" That might explain the overkill. Oh yes, and seeing one of their buddies staggering backwards might have also unnerved them a little. As far as the Rodney King videotape, the Charles Baum beating was taped by a NBC news affiliate. Didn't do him much good, did it? Oh yes, there was the Post's 177 words. And remember, this was last year, or after the media saw the public was "hungry" for police brutality cases. So what happened?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,14:56   

Russell:
Quote
But, just for the record, I don't think the fact that the victim was black and the cops all white was immaterial to the story. Do you?

No, I think it's relevant and newsworthy. So what about Charles Baum?
Quote
And again, you seem to be ignoring the point that I keep making: the Rodney King incident is a classic example of a media-public positive feedback loop. Do you really wonder why the public reaction to the Haggerty incident is less? Do you think that's the fault of the news media?

So are you agreeing that minority-on-majority violence is more emphasized than the converse? Or not? Because if you argue that it isn't, your hypothesis makes no sense.
Quote
So, you have deduced from what I've written, that I think nothing less than a homicide merits newsworthiness? Pardon my saying so, but that would require your either being really dumb, or intentionally misreading.

You were the one emphasizing that this or that story wasn't good enough because it wasn't a murder:
Quote
Not sure what this one's all about. Is the mob one race and the victim another? I don't know. In any case, the report was on the local CBS nightly news. If the worker had not managed to get up and walk back to his cart, perhaps we would have heard more about it. But like I say, with dozens of lethal crimes in the country every day, there's a bit of competition for news coverage.

Quote
Exhibit EQuote  
Mall slay seen as hate crime
The slaying of a law-firm receptionist at a Westchester mall will be prosecuted as a hate crime because the ex-con charged with the crime confessed "he wanted to kill a white person," District Attorney Jeanine Pirro said yesterday.  
Well, now. Here's an actual murder. But guess what? There are dozens of murders in the country every day. All of them are horrible. A lot of them involving crazies, like this guy. Do you think every one of them involving a white murderer and a nonwhite victim is national news?

Now later, and much to your credit, you did admit that a non-lethal crime could find its way to the national media. But these earlier comments imply that you were judging crimes primarily on their lethality. But now I don't know - somtimes it's the seriousness of the injury; sometimes it's whether or not it was videotaped; other times, you count the number of bullets and/or shooters and make that the criterion. You've always got an excuse, though. Even when I gave you a lexis-nexis search on five similar cases, it still wasn't enough. But spin it like a spinning top, Russie-Russ; I'm enjoying the show. Now deal with this:
Quote
An obvious example of the media’s preoccupation with race is evident in the cases of Thomas Jones and Rodney King. They suffered similar crimes yet received considerably different media attention.   In 1991 King was videotaped being beaten by several Los Angeles police officers. Images of Rodney King flashed on every television screen across America and throughout the world. The heinous incident drew considerable media coverage, not only from the actual broadcasting of the scene on television, but from the newspapers as well. The world was outraged at the seeming injustice and inhumanity that the police officers inflicted on King and the news responded by spreading the truth. During the first six months after the violent beating, major newspaper throughout the United States wrote 368 articles on King. With unprecedented media coverage given to the subject, King became a benchmark for police brutality. But what made his case unique was not the fact that police were abusing their power, rather its uniqueness was that it was videotaped. After all, police brutality is not a new phenomenon. Many have known only too well the evils that abuse of power can unleash on innocent victims but their voices have gone unheard. King’s videotape put a face on the victim and tyrant uniforms on the police. The March 12, 1991 edition of USA Today expressed the same sentiment when Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the ACLU and Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police, stated that “the difference between this case and others is that this time they got caught; its on tape…The videotape is what made it sensational, got it on television and made it a national news story.”    Thankfully, Rodney King’s case brought the subject of police brutality to America’s conscience.   As Glassner and Stokes suggest, it would seem logical that any future videotaped episode of police brutality or abuse of power, would most likely receive massive media attention and public outrage.

   Media coverage of the following case defied logic. Recently in Philadelphia, Thomas Jones, a black male was severely beaten by police. A television helicopter caught the scene on tape.   Police fired fifty shots at him, grabbed him out of his car and beat him. The beating was all too familiar and reminiscent of the King incident.[except it might have been even worse! - Paley] The Washington Post expressed a sense of deja vu on July 14, 2000 stating , “what was shown on tape…was enough to bring to some minds the 1991 beating by Los Angeles Police of Rodney King, an incident that has become a rallying point against police brutality.”   If the media’s responses to Rodney King’s beating were unprecedented, and the sensationalized video became a rallying point against police brutality, attention drawn to the recently taped Jones beating would be insurmountable. Analysis of his coverage, however, tells a different story. His did not follow the same path in major newspapers that King’s had. During the first six months after each respective episode, newspapers wrote over 1000 articles on Rodney King and only 161 on Thomas Jones. In order to get a clearer understanding of the issue, a Lexis Nexis search for articles containing each victim’s name and police brutality showed the same disparity. The first six months revealed only seventy-six articles on Jones and 368 documents on King.

   As both cases had almost identical circumstances, including the race of the victims, what could the difference be between these cases?   The difference lies in the race of the police officers.   White officers beat Rodney King, while those who beat and shot Thomas Jones were both black and white. Perhaps the media chose to ignore Thomas Jones because his attackers could not be categorized as white and racist.An editorial in the July 16, 2000 edition of Newsday exemplifies the media’s discretional coverage of racially motivated violence, “Of the 59 blows, three officers delivered the most: 17 by a black plainclothes officer, 14 by a white plainclothesman and 10 by an uniformed black officer. His was an equal-opportunity stomping.”   It would not have been an equal opportunity ‘stomping’ had all white officers perpetrated it or even if they constituted half of the total blows delivered to Jones. Race seems to be a central issue in this case and we can see that it was mentioned several times but in the context of excusing the act. Their cases appear similar since they were both taped and broadcast worldwide, however a major difference noted in The Washington Post of July 17, 2000 states, “One key difference between the cases...is the racial configuration of the players. In Los Angeles, the officers who beat King with nightsticks all were white, while he was black. But in Philadelphia, the both white and black officers hit Jones, a black man.”  So the fact that there were more black officers beating on Jones was a key issue.   Papers were not as eager to report on Jones as they had been on previous police violence against minority victims.    Since the media is only interested in racial scandal, and not brutality, the Jones’ beating had to be justified since it didn’t fit the criteria for the stereotypical minority victim of a white despotic police force.   Accordingly, Mr. Jones’ story quickly disappeared.

[all emphases mine]

Quote
Quote  
Some would beg to differ witcha. And unlike you, they'd be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Look, dipwad*, when I say "I'm not sure" it reflects the fact that there's not a whole lot of information I have to go on here. You seem to be implying that I'm making the case that the police actions in this incident were entirely by the book and beyond question. And that not "putting my money where my mouth is" (or isn't as the case may be) is somehow pusillanimous.
Quote  
...it's unlikely that the amount would have survived a trial & appeal even if she won, which according to Russell probably wouldn't happen anyway.
Why don't you restrict yourself to addressing what I actually write? Why do you find it necessary to invent fictional opinions to argue against?

Just one question: why not let the public read about these cases and judge for themselves? Seems reasonable to me. But liberals find the concept pretty scary, apparently.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,15:07   

Well little evos, you've bought yourself another day; my heaviest hitter is still in the basement. But I couldn't resist leaving you with a parting shot. Enjoy.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,15:44   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 02 2006,20<!--emo&:0)
Well little evos, you've bought yourself another day; my heaviest hitter is still in the basement. But I couldn't resist leaving you with a parting shot. Enjoy.

Okay, Bill. I'm batting zero with my question here. But maybe I'll try to phrase it somewhat differently:

"What do you suppose the media are trying to accomplish by stifling stories of minority-on-majority crime, and emphasizing majority-on-minority crime?"

In other words, what's the motivation?

You've got the media in the stock here, accused of racial bias. Now: presumably you've got a motive in mind. Would you care to share that motive with us? Perhaps the media are trying to precipitate a race war? Well, that would certainly be good for business. But since the majority of the owners and shareholders of large media companies are white, it seems strange they'd want to start a race war with themselves on the losing end of it. Maybe they're counting on numerical superiority to assure an annihilation of the bad guys they don't like to report about?

I've gotta admit: I'm kind of stymied here, wondering what you think the motivation is. Faid's theory makes sense. I guess I won't know whether your theory makes sense until I hear it.

Also, what does any of this have to do with evolution? I can see you having a bone to pick with "liberals," but I'm not sure where evolutionary biologists fit into the picture…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,15:48   

Whoops - forgot Eric's question:
Quote
What's so hard about this question, Bill: If you're right, and there is a "multicultural" bias in the media, which leads to under-reporting of minority-on-majority crime, why is this something we should be concerned about? Why does this particular fault of the media need to be remedied, when so many other vastly more destructive shortcomings evidently don't?

Maybe not so important now, but I think it will become more important over time as immigration trends continue. And I just hate coverups. (By the way, I agree that the press kisses Bush's a$$. Their coverage of his administration is a sad joke. But I'm preaching to the choir on this issue).
[edit: this response will have to suffice for tonight, Eric]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,16:33   

Look. Here are three specific questions directed at you, Ghostface:
Quote
How often do you suppose people get shot when, after resisting arrest by leading cops on a car chase, the cop mistakes an unwise move for reaching for a gun? What fraction of those cases do you suppose you hear about? Suppose Diallo had been shot once by one cop, when the cop mistook reaching for a wallet for reaching for a gun. Do you suppose that would have been national news?
Is this your idea of an answer:
Quote
Funny, that sounds a lot like the Diallo shooting, except in the Diallo shooting, one of the cops shouted, "Gun!" That might explain the overkill. Oh yes, and seeing one of their buddies staggering backwards might have also unnerved them a little.
Maybe if I ask them one at a time, I'll have better luck. Let's just go with this: do you suppose that if Diallo had been shot by one or two cops, once or twice, because they mistakenly thought he was reaching for a gun, that would have been national news? That would be one (1) "Yes or No" question.
Quote
As far as the Rodney King videotape, the Charles Baum beating was taped by a NBC news affiliate. Didn't do him much good, did it?
Is there a point here, somewhere? First you brought up Rodney King to show how skewed the (non)coverage of the Haggerty incident was. Well, that really didn't work. So now you're substituting the Baum case. First of all, no one is denying that the Rodney King case was all about - real or perceived - racism. Did you have the impression that someone was? Do you think that's inappropriate?  Secondly, setting aside the question of race just for a moment and for the sake of discussion, were the two beatings, or more to the point, the two tapes similarly brutal? I seem to recall several incidents of bad police behavior caught on videotape, but the only victim whose name I remember is Rodney King. I suggest two reasons why that might be (1) it was particularly vicious, and (2) there was that media-public positive feedback loop I keep trying to get you to acknowledge. (We'll consider the fact that the cop/victim ratio was 4/1 and 1/1 in the King and Baum cases, respectively, as part of reason #1). The Baum case certainly does sound like police misconduct. But, regrettably, police misconduct - even the white on black kind - is not necessarily national news. Baum was "struck" 8 times - after being handcuffed. No doubt about it; that's not good. But what does that mean? Have you seen the Baum videotape, Ghost? Can you tell us whether the brutality of the assault, or seriousness of the injuries, was comparable to the Rodney King case? Or does that not matter?
Quote
(Russell: ) But, just for the record, I don't think the fact that the victim was black and the cops all white was immaterial to the story. Do you?
Quote
(GoP: ) No, I think it's relevant and newsworthy.
Good. I'm glad we got that out of the way.
Quote
So what about Charles Baum?
Much less so. Minority on majority police brutality is not going to set off alarms about oppression, triggering that all-important media-public positive feedback loop I keep telling you about.
Quote
So are you agreeing that minority-on-majority violence is more emphasized than the converse? Or not? Because if you argue that it isn't, your hypothesis makes no sense.
Huh? Agreeing with whom? What hypothesis? Is there a typo or something in there, the correction of which would render this sensible?
Quote
But these earlier comments imply that you were judging crimes primarily on their lethality
Geez, Ghosty. You're really getting desperate here; either that or your reading comprehension issues are more serious than I thought.

Let me try to break this down for you. Crimes - whether or not a racial angle is involved - come in a huge range of brutality. There are far too many crimes on a daily basis to be covered by the national press. Now, you can be pretty sure that disorderly conduct, including, say, hurling racial epithets, is not going to make national news. One factor that increases the newsworthiness of a crime is its brutality. All murders are brutal (at least the way I see it). But not all egregious brutality is murder. Can you grasp that? Moreover, as I've said all along, there are other factors, too, beyond brutality that influence the newsworthiness of a crime. One of those would be racial implications. Now, do you really think you can defend your characterization that I claimed nothing short of murder was newsworthy?
Quote
But now I don't know - somtimes it's the seriousness of the injury; sometimes it's whether or not it was videotaped; other times, you count the number of bullets and/or shooters and make that the criterion.
I doubt that I need to point out to anyone reading this how lame this is. All of these things contribute to the newsworthiness of an incident. As does, sometimes, the racial disposition of perpetrators and victims. Now here's another direct question for you, Ghosty: Which of these factors that I've brought up do you think should not contribute to the newsworthiness of the incident in question?
Quote
You've always got an excuse, though. Even when I gave you a lexis-nexis search on five similar cases, it still wasn't enough.
Wasn't enough for what? What do you think your lexis-nexis revelations proved?
Quote
But spin it like a spinning top, Russie-Russ; I'm enjoying the show.
I'm so glad. Just think how much you'd enjoy it if you actually understood it. But I'm afraid that, unless you show some effort and/or ability in that direction, the show's over.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Eldin



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2006,16:41   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 02 2006,20:48)

Quote
Maybe not so important now, but I think it will become more important over time as immigration trends continue. And I just hate coverups.


You will note that this is not an answer. You 'think' it will become 'important', but fail to specify why. We are none the wiser, Ghost.

Also, you should note that majority on minority is overreported for a reason as has been specified before. But what about minority on majority?

A little anecdote. Here in Holland, tensions are building ever since some rampant queer took hold of the elections, became a populist succes by demonising his running mates (mudslinging) then accused his opponents of that same tactic. He was subsequently killed by a dutch enviromentalist and since then we are living in a state of perpetual fear. The minority (eastern-europeans, Arabs, Turks, Blacks) is now considered a problem due to his preachings, and every time something is done by a member of those communities it will be reported. Good minority on majority coverage!

But what's the result? The climate in the Netherlands is becoming increasingly grim, with an increasing amount of minorities stating they are given less chance which leads to them becoming frustrated and hateful, which in term serves to make the majority more paranoid, which then makes the minorities more militant, etc. etc.

That is not to say that these things shouldn't be reported, but it just makes me very mad when I see something like 'Man kills family for the love of Polish prostitute' (which was big news here). The article would not have suffered in content if the adjective 'Polish' had been left out. All it is doing in there is making us distrust Poles.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,04:21   

Russell:
Quote
Maybe if I ask them one at a time, I'll have better luck. Let's just go with this: do you suppose that if Diallo had been shot by one or two cops, once or twice, because they mistakenly thought he was reaching for a gun, that would have been national news? That would be one (1) "Yes or No" question.

Actually, yes. Would it have received as much coverage? No. But I do think it would have gotten more attention than Gideon Busch:
Quote
If Gideon Busch’s story had followed the trajectory of Amadou Diallo, it would have been a national outrage, with coverage matching or exceeding the more than 1000 stories on the Diallo case. Revealingly, Gideon Busch’s coverage paled in comparison to Diallo. The mainstream media ignored Busch. In the northeast, forty-six articles were written, two in the southeast, zero in the west, and zero in the midwest. The first month’s forty-eight national articles were less than what Amadou had received in the southeast alone. And a majority of the articles came from local newspapers such as The Daily News and The New York Post.

   The United States was not alone in minimally covering Busch. Worldwide he received minor attention in the first month after his death. Canada and South America didn’t write any articles on him. They wrote forty-seven for Diallo, thirty for Dorismond, and twenty-one for Thomas. Busch inspired only two articles in Europe. Lexis-Nexis revealed the grand total for the first month of each victim’s international coverage, including Europe, Asia/Pacific regions, Africa and the Mideast, and North/South America. Amadou had 109 articles, Dorismond sixty-nine, Thomas 101, compared to Busch’s paltry four. Patrick Dorismond, shot a year after Busch, received more media attention abroad than Busch received in the United States and the world combined.

      Busch’s less than stellar attention abroad might be attributed to the fact that he was armed. But such an explanation for the media’s silence presumes that the Busch story was understood as a legitimate police response to an armed assailant, rather than an episode of police brutality. When in fact, many of the Busch news accounts that covered the episode alluded to Busch’s death being an example of police violence.

   While mainstream media ignored Busch, it would be easy to assume that he’d receive more attention in ethnic and religious newspapers. Suprisingly, Busch, a Hasidic Jew received less publicity in Jewish newspapers than did Diallo. The Jewish Week wrote six articles on Busch – nine on Diallo. Forward, another Jewish newspaper wrote seven articles on Busch and fourteen on Diallo. The Jewish Advocate wrote one article on Diallo but did not advocate for Gideon. New Jersey Jewish News published six articles on Diallo- zero on Busch. Was that because he was not from Jersey? It is unlikely, as Diallo was not either. Other papers from the New York region are guilty of the same offense. El Diario/La Prensa, the largest circulation Spanish newspaper in the area, wrote sixty-five articles on Diallo and a measly five on Busch. The disproportion is evident in other ethnic papers as well such as Filipino Reporter, The Italian Voice, and Irish Voice, all of which published between one and five articles each on Diallo but did not follow suit for Busch. Perhaps both mainstream and ethnic newspapers find matters that don’t sensationalize racism as arbitrary or unnewsworthy. Media gives more publicity and attention to police brutality cases that can be attributed to racism. Cases such as Busch’s are essentially ignored.

    In order to understand the media’s negligent reporting on Mr. Busch, it is necessary to understand the difference between him and the other police victims. The fact that Busch is white, while the other victims are black might be the reason for the media’s unenthusiastic portrayal of police brutality versus the apparent hype of racism. The media has exhibited a determined obsession with over emphasizing police violence as racially motivated. Could the media be exploiting America’s struggle with racism in order to create a crisis that generates news?

    The media’s compulsive chase after white on black police violence reveals the beginning of what can arguably be a racial panic. The media’s creation of a racial panic is best shown through a former moral panic created by the media in regards to drugs.
Philip Jenkins’ research published in Justice Quarterly reprinted in The American Drug Scene, shows the influence that the media has in creating a drug epidemic. He warns that a moral panic regarding a particular drug actually advertises it to many Americans. In other words, the media has the capacity to create a problem that may not be as problematic as the coverage maintains it to be. For example, Jenkins suggests that in the 1980s, “Newspapers assigned journalists to cover such stories as their sole responsibility, …the papers had a vested interest in the constant generation of newsworthy items in the area.”  Journalists worked solely to cover drug stories. They pursued and covered the so-called drug epidemic. Newspapers were purposely over extending their coverage on particular drugs, sensationalizing an epidemic, which resulted in a moral panic and increased drug use.   Could the media be exploiting America’s struggle with racism in order to create a crisis that generates news?    Jenkins’ research demonstrated another interesting media trend, the disappearance of a crisis. The media had created a methamphetamine, or ice, national crisis. Unfortunately for the media, “the ice danger did not materialize as a national crisis, and the prospective ‘plague’ faded rapidly in early 1990”.  If a real epidemic does not result from the coverage, the issue is quickly dropped. The media then moves on to another topic that it can manipulate.

[my emp]

Oh, and by the way, ol' Gideon was shot twelve times by four police officers arranged in a semicircle. Yes, he lunged with a weapon - a &*^$ing hammer. A hammer. And he was mentally ill....don't you think the media could have spun that aspect of the story? I can see the headlines: "Four cops pump 12 bullets into mental patient armed with hammer!!!" But Gideon never got the chance outside of mostly local coverage.......

By the way, I notice you misplaced the part where my source contrasts the Thomas Jones and Rodney King cases, you know, where they note:
Quote
Media coverage of the following case defied logic. Recently in Philadelphia, Thomas Jones, a black male was severely beaten by police. A television helicopter caught the scene on tape.   Police fired fifty shots at him, grabbed him out of his car and beat him. The beating was all too familiar and reminiscent of the King incident. The Washington Post expressed a sense of deja vu on July 14, 2000 stating , “what was shown on tape…was enough to bring to some minds the 1991 beating by Los Angeles Police of Rodney King, an incident that has become a rallying point against police brutality.”   If the media’s responses to Rodney King’s beating were unprecedented, and the sensationalized video became a rallying point against police brutality, attention drawn to the recently taped Jones beating would be insurmountable. Analysis of his coverage, however, tells a different story. His did not follow the same path in major newspapers that King’s had. During the first six months after each respective episode, newspapers wrote over 1000 articles on Rodney King and only 161 on Thomas Jones. In order to get a clearer understanding of the issue, a Lexis Nexis search for articles containing each victim’s name and police brutality showed the same disparity. The first six months revealed only seventy-six articles on Jones and 368 documents on King.

   As both cases had almost identical circumstances, including the race of the victims, what could the difference be between these cases?   The difference lies in the race of the police officers.   White officers beat Rodney King, while those who beat and shot Thomas Jones were both black and white. Perhaps the media chose to ignore Thomas Jones because his attackers could not be categorized as white and racist. An editorial in the July 16, 2000 edition of Newsday exemplifies the media’s discretional coverage of racially motivated violence, “Of the 59 blows, three officers delivered the most: 17 by a black plainclothes officer, 14 by a white plainclothesman and 10 by an uniformed black officer. His was an equal-opportunity stomping.”   It would not have been an equal opportunity ‘stomping’ had all white officers perpetrated it or even if they constituted half of the total blows delivered to Jones. Race seems to be a central issue in this case and we can see that it was mentioned several times but in the context of excusing the act. Their cases appear similar since they were both taped and broadcast worldwide, however a major difference noted in The Washington Post of July 17, 2000 states, “One key difference between the cases...is the racial configuration of the players. In Los Angeles, the officers who beat King with nightsticks all were white, while he was black. But in Philadelphia, the both white and black officers hit Jones, a black man.”  So the fact that there were more black officers beating on Jones was a key issue.   Papers were not as eager to report on Jones as they had been on previous police violence against minority victims.    Since the media is only interested in racial scandal, and not brutality, the Jones’ beating had to be justified since it didn’t fit the criteria for the stereotypical minority victim of a white despotic police force.   Accordingly, Mr. Jones’ story quickly disappeared.

Not up to your standards?  ???

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,05:10   

Lots of pasting; still no point.

No source listed for those last two dumps. I assume they came from the usual impeccable bastions of impartiality. Still, the responsible thing to do would be to acknowledge your source.

That way, maybe we could learn enough about the Gideon Busch story, for instance, to form some basis for comparison. As it is, we don't know nearly enough, like why he attracted the attention of the police in the first place.

Rodney King: a story that ignites a media-public positive feedback firestorm because of real or perceived racial animus

Thomas Jones: a story with similar brutality, but missing any credible racial animus, gets national coverage, but less. It fails to ignite that all-important media-public positive feedback loop. Is this unfair? Was the King coverage excessive? Was the press negligent in covering the Jones case?

Quote
Not up to your standards?
No. It's not. Is it up to yours?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,06:31   

Russell:
Quote
Lots of pasting; still no point.

Especially if you've closed your mind to one....
Quote
No source listed for those last two dumps. I assume they came from the usual impeccable bastions of impartiality. Still, the responsible thing to do would be to acknowledge your source.

:0  :0  :0  :(  :(  :D  :D  :D

Russell, you loon, this is the same source we've been arguing about for over two pages now! You know, the one that I've been "quote-mining" from! The one that "supports" your feedback loop hypothesis! Kids, liberalism rots the brain.....Exhibit A: Posters on Panda's Thumb.

Quote
That way, maybe we could learn enough about the Gideon Busch story, for instance, to form some basis for comparison. As it is, we don't know nearly enough, like why he attracted the attention of the police in the first place.

Rodney King: a story that ignites a media-public positive feedback firestorm because of real or perceived racial animus

Thomas Jones: a story with similar brutality, but missing any credible racial animus, gets national coverage, but less. It fails to ignite that all-important media-public positive feedback loop. Is this unfair? Was the King coverage excessive? Was the press negligent in covering the Jones case?

In other words, you do concede that the media covers minority-on majority crimes/ brutality cases differently from the converse, correct? I realise that we ascribe different motives to the media's actions, but please answer this question:

Does the media emphasize majority-on-minority crime, and de-emphasize minority-on-majority crime? Just yes or no, please.

Yes or no. Then we'll talk motive.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,06:58   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 03 2006,11:31)
Kids, liberalism rots the brain.....Exhibit A: Posters on Panda's Thumb.

I consider myself to be liberal, Dave. Do you consider my brain to be "rotten"?

Quote
Does the media emphasize majority-on-minority crime, and de-emphasize minority-on-majority crime? Just yes or no, please.

Yes or no. Then we'll talk motive.


Actually, you mean "Yes. Then we'll talk about motive." If we don't admit your premise, we can't even discuss your conclusion.

My point is, even if your premise is valid, it's hard to picture what your conclusion would be.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,07:31   

Quote
this is the same source we've been arguing about for over two pages now! You know, the one that I've been "quote-mining" from! The one that "supports" your feedback loop hypothesis! Kids, liberalism rots the brain.....Exhibit A: Posters on Panda's Thumb.
Oh, really? Go back over your posts and see when the last time you acknowledged that source. You quoted from it extensively yesterday, again without acknowledging it. In the last two pages, I see a Wikipedia quote cited, and before that, a FrontPage article. Regrettably, I have to use my admittedly limited memory capacity for purposes other than keeping track of your quotes from dozens of posts back. Now, I might be tempted to draw conclusions about how poor scholarship and attention to details like acknowledging sources correlates with troglodyte politics, but that would be wrong.
Quote
In other words, you do concede that the media covers minority-on majority crimes/ brutality cases differently from the converse, correct?
Oh, was that not clear? I thought I had gone over that about a dozen times while explaining the whole media-public positive feedback loop to you. Yes. There are differences in the coverage of the two groups. Majority-on-minority crime - all other things being equal - merits a bit more newsworthiness than the reverse.
Quote
Does the media emphasize majority-on-minority crime, and de-emphasize minority-on-majority crime? Just yes or no, please.
You'll have to make do with the answer I just gave, unless you define what "emphasis" is relative to. Relative to the coverage you think is appropriate? Relative to the coverage you'd expect in the absence of any racial component?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,07:37   

Eric:
Quote
I consider myself to be liberal, Dave.

OK, you out-zinged me. Who's Dave?????
Quote
Do you consider my brain to be "rotten"?

Naaah, yer one of the lads, Eric. And to your credit, you have conceded the basic facts, although you disagree with me over how to interpret them, or even whether they're even worth interpreting. But Russell seems to want to have it both ways:
1) He denies that the media is underemphasizing minority-on-majority crimes
2) Then he turns around and argues his loop hypothesis, which, to be coherent, must assume that this underemphasis takes place

Plus, he just forgot the existence of a source, the same source Faid and I have been arguing over for the past two pages, despite the fact that Faid and I have probably quoted every word of it during our debate. Look, Russ, I'm sorry I called you a loon and implied yer brain was rotten. But stop making bone-headed arguments, will ya?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,07:46   

edit

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,08:04   

Quote
[Russell] denies that the media is underemphasizing minority-on-majority crimes
Did I? Perhaps I misstated my position. Please refer me to where I denied that. I want to make sure I didn't accidentally leave this concept of "emphasis" unexamined.
Quote
Plus, he just forgot the existence of a source, the same source Faid and I have been arguing over for the past two pages, despite the fact that Faid and I have probably quoted every word of it during our debate.
You seem to think I should take you more seriously than I do. Like memorizing your quotes from... when was the last time you acknowledged it?
Quote
Look, Russ, I'm sorry I called you a loon and implied yer brain was rotten. But stop making bone-headed arguments, will ya?
Gosh. I was a little hesitant to buy your argument based on the lack of support, the many questions you've left unaddressed, and the fact that your sources are either WingNut Central or a student essayist who fundamentally disagrees with your point, once you read him in context. But now that you've labeled my arguments "bone-headed"... well, I guess there's just no countering that.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,08:15   

Quote
Oh, really? Go back over your posts and see when the last time you acknowledged that source. You quoted from it extensively yesterday, again without acknowledging it. In the last two pages, I see a Wikipedia quote cited, and before that, a FrontPage article. Regrettably, I have to use my admittedly limited memory capacity for purposes other than keeping track of your quotes from dozens of posts back. Now, I might be tempted to draw conclusions about how poor scholarship and attention to details like acknowledging sources correlates with troglodyte politics, but that would be wrong.

Ok, I deserved that, so I'll let it drop. Sorry for calling you a loon.
Quote
Quote  
In other words, you do concede that the media covers minority-on majority crimes/ brutality cases differently from the converse, correct?  
Oh, was that not clear? I thought I had gone over that about a dozen times while explaining the whole media-public positive feedback loop to you. Yes. There are differences in the coverage of the two groups. Majority-on-minority crime - all other things being equal - merits a bit more newsworthiness than the reverse.

I can live with that. So I'm assuming from now on that all of us (Paley, Faid, Russell, Eric) agree that the media underemphasize minority-on-majority violence relative to majority-on-minority violence. This is true for brutality cases and for criminal cases. If anyone disagrees, say so now.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,08:35   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 03 2006,12:37)
Eric:
Quote
I consider myself to be liberal, Dave.

OK, you out-zinged me. Who's Dave?????
Quote
Do you consider my brain to be "rotten"?

Naaah, yer one of the lads, Eric. And to your credit, you have conceded the basic facts, although you disagree with me over how to interpret them, or even whether they're even worth interpreting.

Oops, been reading too much AFDave, I guess. I meant "Bill,"  of course.

Also, I wouldn't agree that I have in general conceded the "basic facts." I've conceded them arguendo, because it's the only way I see of moving the discussion forward.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:02   

Quote
So I'm assuming from now on that all of us (Paley, Faid, Russell, Eric) agree that the media underemphasize minority-on-majority violence relative to majority-on-minority violence. This is true for brutality cases and for criminal cases. If anyone disagrees, say so now.
Foreseeing, as I do, potential "meaning-drift" on that term ,"underemphasize", in any ensuing discussion, I'm going to clarify what I'm agreeing with.

In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,09:38   

Russell:
Quote
In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

Good. We'll run with that definition.

Eric:
Quote
Also, I wouldn't agree that I have in general conceded the "basic facts." I've conceded them arguendo, because it's the only way I see of moving the discussion forward.

Sigh. OK. So we all agree to treat this contention....
Quote
In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

.....as an axiom. In other words, this contention is beyond dispute for the remainder of the thread. Anyone who wishes to argue against this claim must start a new thread. Eric, do you agree? Yes or no, please. Also, Faid, do you agree?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,10:16   

Guts to gametes, Bill?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,10:26   

Ah... memories.

('course, I called it the "meat n' potatoes" theory, but "guts to gametes" seems to have caught on, and, heck, it's catchier anyway.)

We've come a long way, baby.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,10:32   

Alan Fox:
Quote
Guts to gametes, Bill?

Oh, that reminds me. Tonight, I need to create a new thread. I think you might find it interesting.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,10:34   

Will it be an explanation of the "compelling" evidence of how heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, and how adding gay marriages shorts out the network? Because it's been like two weeks since you said you were working on that model.

I mean, I assume you don't just go around shooting your mouth off claiming ties between complicated math topics and your social beliefs, with no basis for saying so? I don't go around saying my opposition to the death penalty is based on the nilpotents of Abelian cyclic groups. That would be an asinine thing to do. That's not what you did, was it? Surely you have some kind of vague model in mind or you wouldn't have said that, no?

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,10:51   

stevestory
Quote
Will it be an explanation of the "compelling" evidence of how heterosexual marriages are hubs on a scale-free network, and how adding gay marriages shorts out the network? Because it's been like two weeks since you said you were working on that model.

Actually, Steve, you might want to tune into tonight's thread as well......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,11:01   

Russell:
Quote
In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

Good. We'll run with that definition.

Eric:
Quote
Also, I wouldn't agree that I have in general conceded the "basic facts." I've conceded them arguendo, because it's the only way I see of moving the discussion forward.

Sigh. OK. So we all agree to treat this contention....
Quote
In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

.....as an axiom. In other words, this contention is beyond dispute for the remainder of the thread. Anyone who wishes to argue against this claim must start a new thread. Eric, do you agree? Yes or no, please. Also, Faid, do you agree?

Eric?..........Faid?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,11:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 03 2006,16<!--emo&:0)
In other words, this contention is beyond dispute for the remainder of the thread. Anyone who wishes to argue against this claim must start a new thread. Eric, do you agree? Yes or no, please. Also, Faid, do you agree?

Eric?..........Faid?

Yeah, I'm okay with that. I'd never do it if I were arguing a case to a judge, but since this is supposedly entertainment...

So, given arguendo that Bill's theory about media bias is correct, what are the ramifications of that bias, what should be done about it, and what social ill would be remedied by correcting that bias?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,12:00   

Quote

Actually, Steve, you might want to tune into tonight's thread as well......
Oh I will. But I already know you're not going to be delivering the scale free model.

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,12:41   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 03 2006,14:38)
Sigh. OK. So we all agree to treat this contention....
Quote
In news stories involving "man's inhumanity to man" (crime, brutality, savagery involving rolled up newspapers, etc.)  a majority/minority perpetrator/victim configuration generally gets more ink than the reverse - all other things being equal.

.....as an axiom. In other words, this contention is beyond dispute for the remainder of the thread. Anyone who wishes to argue against this claim must start a new thread. Eric, do you agree? Yes or no, please. Also, Faid, do you agree?

Sorry for the late reply... In the risk of complicating this even further, soryy, Ghost, no.

You see, after all that's been discussed and all I've read, I'm indeed inclined to agree that "mainstream" media (those more involved in the higher rates competition, after all) tend to overemphasise "maj-on-min" crimes, and not underemphasise "min-on-maj" crimes (which I think is a completely different thing, and those two are not mutually exclusive). Also: I think this for American media. In my country, for instance, it's the opposite that happens: Minority-on-majority crimes are overemphasised. That's not because the media here are in their majority conservative- they're not, actually: It's because it's not fear of racism that sells the most here; it's fear of foreigners. Not that a good racism story does not sell: It does, unfortunately. It's just that a "bloody Albanians" story sells better, And the public in Greece have not developed a knee-jerk response against media that use such deplorable tactics yet, specially since we lack historical events like those that marked American history.

I'll be on my rounds for the rest of the night, but I'll try to respond to any questins if I get the time...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,13:38   

Eric:
Quote
So, given arguendo that Bill's theory about media bias is correct, what are the ramifications of that bias, what should be done about it, and what social ill would be remedied by correcting that bias?

No, you don't understand. Russell's just conceding that majority-on-minority crimes get more ink than minority-on-majority crimes. If I understand him correctly, he does not concede my explanation for that "fact" arguendo, de facto, or el segundo. And Faid sure as #### won't go for it. I realise that you want to jump ahead to my remedy, but I'm trying to show that my model actually explains the media's actions better than Russell's "financial feedback loop" hypothesis, or whatever he calls it.
Faid:
Quote
Sorry for the late reply... In the risk of complicating this even further, soryy, Ghost, no.

You see, after all that's been discussed and all I've read, I'm indeed inclined to agree that "mainstream" media (those more involved in the higher rates competition, after all) tend to overemphasise "maj-on-min" crimes, and not underemphasise "min-on-maj" crimes (which I think is a completely different thing, and those two are not mutually exclusive). Also: I think this for American media.

Since my model relies on the bolded claim, I don't know what to say. I would be willing to restrict my complaint to the American media. But since Russell and (I hope) Eric do concede both parts, I don't want to waste Hammerhead Hagan on a lone dissent, however principled, especially since it will lead to endless battles about the distinction between "underemphasizing" minority crimes, versus "overselling" majority crime. For example: does the national media's refusal to explicitly compare the Haggerty and Diallo cases count as an "under", an "over", or a combination of the two (which is my hunch, because in order to "sell" the Diallo case as racial bias, the media must ignore similar cases that don't fit the theory). In addition, your position compels you to find a post hoc reason to disqualify any case that threatens your position: nope, not enough bullets, not enough blows, the attackers didn't use enough weapons, the attackers used too many weapons, the victim wasn't crippled, the victim was crippled in a boring way, there wasn't any videotape, the videotape was inconclusive,  there weren't enough attackers, the attackers didn't use enough slurs, this social issue wasn't involved, that social issue was too involved etc, etc, etc. No matter how similar, an excuse is always at hand, and this renders your argument unfalsifiable. And since numerical disparities don't prove "underrepresentation", I can't even compare groups of similar cases. I'm not accusing you of being dishonest - actually, I find you very honest - but I've seen how even the best people behave when their world view is at stake, and I don't feel like going on a snipe hunt. Once again, I'm not trying to smear you, but I've been in this position too many times already.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,14:02   

Just as a point of clarification, Bill: have you already presented your model? Because if you did, I missed it.

I'm hoping I'm not that dim-witted, but presumably your "explanation" for the "fact" (which one, exactly?) is synonymous with your "model"?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,14:50   

Eric:
Quote
Just as a point of clarification, Bill: have you already presented your model? Because if you did, I missed it.

I'm hoping I'm not that dim-witted, but presumably your "explanation" for the "fact" (which one, exactly?) is synonymous with your "model"?

To be honest, it's been a long day and I'm a little tired. Tomorrow, I'll let Mr. Hagan out of the basement and also address your concerns. But don't forget to cast your vote...

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2006,15:02   

[quote=The Ghost of Paley,May 03 2006,18:38][/quote]
Quote
For example: does the national media's refusal to explicitly compare the Haggerty and Diallo cases count as an "under", an "over", or a combination of the two (which is my hunch, because in order to "sell" the Diallo case as racial bias, the media must ignore similar cases that don't fit the theory).

Hmm. The media does not have to compare the two cases, every time it mentions one or the other. Where did you get that? That's our job.  :p
What the media have to do (absolutely have to do, in order to get higher rates), is to figure out which of these two incidents they can work with better. Now, if the two events are simultaneous, one will be underemphasized as the more "juicy" one gets all the time. Otherwise, Every bit of news will get attention according to its severity and its ability to induce more sales: Much more, if the media have something to help them work their "magic" there as well.

What I think, in short: A crime is always news. No crime is underemphasised a priori because of its nature (not in societies where the media are free, at least). It is only underemphasized when the media wish to use the extra time and space to overemphasize some other bit of news that happens at the same time, and sells better. If there is no such alternative, the crime will get the attention we'd expect- probably more.

Now, remember: I said expect - not deserve. I'm not saying that the media is fair in doing so. The media might think that a white guy killing a black would work better in today's news than a black killing a white- however, they might also think that another silly comment by the prez would work better than both. I'm just saying.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,04:31   

Faid:
           Later today, I'll try to move the debate forward. But as for the poll - I just couldn't decide which model to tackle first. So I says, "Why not let the posters decide. That way, I can get a sense of which topic deserves the most attention, at least according to the ones who know best".
           You know, I once read that the science fiction luminary Greg Bear, struggling with acute obesity, came up with a clever plan to lose weight: he wrote a check for $5000 payable to the American Nazi Party. He let his attorney hold the check in escrow for a year, and if Bear didn't lose a specified amount of weight within that time period, the Nazis would receive the money. With the extra motivation, Bear not only reached his target weight - he lost an additional 20 pounds. Something to think about.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,07:40   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 04 2006,09:31)
Faid:
           Later today, I'll try to move the debate forward. But as for the poll - I just couldn't decide which model to tackle first. So I says, "Why not let the posters decide. That way, I can get a sense of which topic deserves the most attention, at least according to the ones who know best".
           You know, I once read that the science fiction luminary Greg Bear, struggling with acute obesity, came up with a clever plan to lose weight: he wrote a check for $5000 payable to the American Nazi Party. He let his attorney hold the check in escrow for a year, and if Bear didn't lose a specified amount of weight within that time period, the Nazis would receive the money. With the extra motivation, Bear not only reached his target weight - he lost an additional 20 pounds. Something to think about.

Ghost, like I said, I don't have a problem with either your poll or your logic behind it. You can present whatever model or models you like, for any reason you like. It's the same.
It's that "show me 18 people interested or I present nothing" bit my problem's with. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand why.


As for Greg Bear.... Whaaaaaaa?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,09:09   

Faid:
Quote
As for Greg Bear.... Whaaaaaaa?

Sometimes you need a little extra motivation, that's all.

[Ooooooohhhhh.....only halfway there, I see. The Darwinists sense defeat on the horizon for whichever lost soul they vote for.]

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,10:23   

:09-->
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 04 2006,14:09)
[Ooooooohhhhh.....only halfway there, I see. The Darwinists sense defeat on the horizon for whichever lost soul they vote for.]

Ahhh... The Designer bless you, Ghost, you reminded me of another author, Pratchett:

Vimes said nothing. Wonse was a gloater. You always stood a chance with gloaters. The old Patrician had never been a gloater, you could say that for him. If he wanted you dead, you never even heard about it. The thing to do with gloaters was play the game according to their rules.

So... Go on and present whatever you want, Ghost. I don't care. And if you don't want to present anything at all, don't. It's not like it's my credibility in question here...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:53   

Quote
So... Go on and present whatever you want, Ghost. I don't care. And if you don't want to present anything at all, don't. It's not like it's my credibility in question here...

Hey, if you guys don't care enough, why should I? The time you spent bitching about my conditions could have been spent voting, or both voting and bitching about my conditions. Here's a thought: could we get the moderators to kill my off-thread posts for the next three weeks after the debate officially begins (assuming the minimum vote number is reached)? Or moved to the Bathroom Wall? Or they could even set a maximum time limit after the minimum vote-count is reached, and then kill off-thread posts regardless of whether I start the debate. That way, I must either stay on topic or forfeit this forum entirely for the three weeks. I'm willing to put up or shut up; I just need a little focus imposed on me.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,15:56   

did i just hear you say you want to be spanked?

that would explain a lot.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,16:19   

Paley, why not practice a little self discipline and simply not post in any new threads until you have delivered what you agreed too?  We have all  been waiting patiently, YOU made all the promises.  If you would simply concede or forego arguments instead of forestalling the inevitable with your worthless promises, you might have a shred of credibility.  You broke your word at least 4 times by your own count.  You are saying now that you will keep one of your four promises if we jump through your hoop?

RUBBISH!

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:00   

Opus Dei would tell you that self-flagellation is the Xian thing to do, Gawp.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,23:45   

What, now you want to get, not just the whole forum, but also the moderators involved in this? Seriously, Ghost. No wonder you want to argue for geocentrism... You seem to think the whole world revolves around you.

You say we would have saved time if we stopped "bitching" and started voting- well, guess what: you could have saved twice the time by stopping this silly poll business and simply choose one model to present. What it is doesn't matter- you're only going to present one, anyway. Or none, if the magic number "18" is not reached.
(BTW, where did you get that  number? We asked you before and you didn't answer. Is it Paley's Universal Threshold of Minimum Interest or something?)

So, do whatever you feel like, Ghost. Just remember: If your deck of cards comes crumbling down, don't turn around and say something like "well, I expected of you to choose the most difficult model for me to prove... the others, though, they were really compelling. Too bad you'll never see them, since you didn't vote for them..."


...At least to me. Because, remember: I never bought any of this in the first place.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,10:06   

My schedule's a little tight right now....but I'll finish my argument on this topic by next week, and then I should have some time to work on my model. It looks like it should be geocentrism, and I've got a new idea that I've been working on with a fellow church member I'll call Deep Mind......Cogzie, Eric and WW are good, but when they see my new argument, they'll kneel before Zod. But I'd sure like some extra incentive.....political debates:me -> donuts:Homer Simpson.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,10:15   

Quote

...At least to me. Because, remember: I never bought any of this in the first place.

Ghost's mouth wrote checks his brain can't cash.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,11:37   

Here's a followup to the earlier AP story about the bullying against Chinese students.
Quote
Parents and students voiced their frustration at not having an in-language liaison to turn to for help. They also wanted to understand why their children were being picked on by African-American students. Administrators decided to bring in Youth Together, an on-campus youth advocacy group, to help temper tensions between the Chinese students and the African-American students who were bullying them.

The school also suspended several bullies and is considering expelling them.

Tommy Reed, a staff organizer with Youth Together and a former Skyline student, cautions people to not look at bullies and bullied students as two separate groups. "Some of the students who are bullying [students] on this campus were bullied," he says. "I was an African-American student at this campus, I was bullied, and I had to bully back, just to survive. People are going to do what's done to them."

Since this is an inter-ethnic trade mag, notice that the race of the bulliers is explicitly identified. This proves that the parents and students were identifying black students as bullies, and that the AP writer either ignored or suppressed the information (while attempting to smear the Italian and Jewish communities, of course). I guess she had to do it in order to get national exposure. In addition, notice the horseplot rationalisation given to black bullying:
Quote
Tommy Reed, a staff organizer with Youth Together and a former Skyline student, cautions people to not look at bullies and bullied students as two separate groups. "Some of the students who are bullying [students] on this campus were bullied," he says. "I was an African-American student at this campus, I was bullied, and I had to bully back, just to survive. People are going to do what's done to them."

HAAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! Sell it to Erin and the other liberals - oh wait, you don't have to - they'll just cover the story, hide the races of the perps, and frame Whitey with sly innuendos....^&%# Marxists. And Russell will claim that the Black students must have been flown in by helicopter.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,12:10   

Quote (Faid @ May 04 2006,12:40)
As for Greg Bear.... Whaaaaaaa?

Greg Bear wrote "Darwin's Children" -- one has to wonder if Ghost read that book.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,15:20   

Quote
....^&%# Marxists.
Huh? What does all this have to do with Marxism? Or is this a little Ghostly humor that I'm not getting?

Quote
And Russell will claim that the Black students must have been flown in by helicopter.
Hey, the student body is what it is. I don't argue with that. I'm just telling you, it's surprising given the makeup of Bensonhurst. Perhaps it reflects busing, or something.

But Ghost never saw fit to comment on the Yusuf Hawkins story. Or the Central Park Jogger story... Is his attention any less selective than the AP's?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,07:59   

Excluding myself, we've got 18 separate individuals on the "Vote" thread, and it's obvious that they're all interested in a model.....but not all have voted. Now, I'm planning on presenting a hypothesis (Deep Mind and I have hashed out a few details), but without 18 votes, I'm not under any obligation to avoid political threads - so I get the best of both worlds. Silly evos, you can't help it, now can ya? But ya'll soon regret yer insults - that'll just make the beating that much worse.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,08:46   

Quote
I get the best of both worlds.
Claiming to win while looking like an a55?

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2006,13:35   

As I've mentioned previously, I've been sitting on some powerful evidence indicting the media for its massive silence on minority-on-majority crime, and their concomitant amplification of the reverse. If I wanted to, of course, I could rest my case now on the evidence presented. The National Victimisation Survey, the Lexis-Nexis study, the Lafayette High bungle, and the multitude of dramatic cases hidden in the bowels of the media, taken collectively, paint a horrific portrait of a beast that feeds on the blood of its citizens. But I'd like to leave the liberals without a single weapon, regardless of how dusty or obsolete it may be. It's time to unveil the case that dares not speak its name. Ladies and gents, I give you:

The Wichita Massacre.

Let's set the scene:
Quote
The two black men are accused of a week-long crime spree that culminated in the quadruple homicide of four young whites in a snowy soccer field in Wichita, Kansas. In all, the Carr brothers robbed, raped or murdered seven people.
[.....]
The only survivor of the massacre is a woman whose identity has been protected, and who is known as H.G. In statements to police and in testimony at an April 2001 preliminary hearing, the 25-year-old school teacher offered horrible details of what happened on the night of Dec. 14, 2000. That evening, a Thursday, H.G. went to spend the night at the home of her boyfriend, Jason Befort. Mr. Befort, 26, a science teacher and coach at Augusta High School, lived in a triplex condo with two college friends: Bradley Heyka, 27, a financial analyst, and Aaron Sander, 29, who had recently decided to study for the priesthood.

When H.G. arrived with her pet schnauzer Nikki around 8:30 p.m., her boyfriend Mr. Befort was not there, but the two roommates were. A short time later, Mr. Sander's former girlfriend, Heather Muller, a 25-year-old graduate student at Wichita State University who worked as a church preschool teacher, joined them. At about 9 p.m., H.G. went to her boyfriend's ground-floor bedroom to grade papers and watch television. Mr. Befort came home from coaching a basketball practice around 9:15, and at 10:00, H.G. decided to go to bed. Before joining H.G in bed, Mr. Befort made sure all the lights in the house were turned off and all the doors were locked. Mr. Sander was sleeping on a couch in the living room while his former girlfriend slept in the second ground-floor bedroom. Mr. Heyka slept in a room in the basement.

Shortly after 11 p.m., the porch light came back on, to the surprise of Mr. Befort, who was still awake. H.G. says that seconds later she heard voices, then shouting. Her boyfriend cried out in surprise as someone forced open the door to the bedroom. H.G saw "a tall black male standing in the doorway." She didn't know how the man got into the house, and police investigators have not said how they think the Carrs got in. She says the man, whom she later identified as Jonathan Carr, ripped the covers off the bed. Soon, another black man brought Aaron Sander in from the living room at gunpoint and threw him onto the bed. H.G. saw that both men were armed. She said they wanted to know who else was in house, and the terrified whites told them about Mr. Heyka in the basement and Miss Muller in the other ground-floor bedroom. The intruders brought them into Mr. Befort's bedroom.

"We were told to take off all of our clothes," says H.G. in her testimony. "They asked if we had any money. We said: 'Take our money . . . Take whatever you want.' We didn't have any (money)."

The Carrs, however, were not at that point interested in money. They made the victims get into a bedroom closet, and for the next hour brought them out to a hall by a wet bar, singly or in pairs for sex. In the closet-perhaps 12 feet away from the wet-bar area-the victims were under orders not to talk. H.G. says that when the Carrs heard whispering they would wave their guns and shout "Shut the fuck up."

The Carrs first brought out the two women, H.G and Heather Muller, and made them have oral sex and penetrate each other digitally. They then forced Mr. Heyka to have intercourse with H.G. Then they made Mr. Befort have intercourse with H.G, but ordered him to stop when they realized he was her boyfriend. Next, they ordered Mr. Sander to have intercourse with H.G. When the divinity student refused, they hit him on the back of the head with a pistol butt. They sent H.G. back to the bedroom closet and brought out Miss Muller, Mr. Sander's old girlfriend. H.G. testified she could hear what was going on out by the wet bar, and when Mr. Sander was unable to get an erection one of the Carrs beat him with a golf club. Then, she says, the Carr brothers "told [Aaron] that he had until 11:54 to get hard and they counted down from 11:52 to 11:53 to 11:54." The deadline appears to have brought no further punishment, and Mr. Sanders was returned to the closet. The Carrs then forced Mr. Befort to have intercourse with Heather Muller, and then ordered Mr. Heyka to have sex with her. H.G. says she could hear Miss Muller moaning with pain.

The Carrs asked if the victims had ATM cards. Reginald Carr then took the victims one at a time to ATM machines in Mr. Befort's pickup truck, starting with Mr. Heyka. While Reginald Carr was away with Mr. Heyka, Jonathan Carr brought H.G. out of the closet to the wet bar, raped her, and sent her back to the closet. Reginald Carr returned with Mr. Heyka, and ordered Mr. Befort to go with him. Mr. Heyka was put back in the closet but said nothing about his trip to the ATM machine. Mr. Sander asked Mr. Heyka if they should try to resist, assuming they would be killed anyway, but Mr. Heyka did not reply. While Reginald Carr was away with Mr. Befort at the cash machine, Jonathan Carr ordered Heather Muller out of the closet and raped her.

When Reginald Carr returned with Mr. Befort, H.G. volunteered to go next. Mr. Carr let her put on a sweater, but nothing else, and said he liked seeing her with no underwear. He ordered her to drive the truck to a bank, and told her not to look at him as he crouched in the back seat. "I asked him if he was going to hurt us and he said, 'No,' " she says. "I said, 'Do you promise you're not going to kill us?' and he said, 'Yes.' "

H.G. got money from the cash machine and adds, "On the way back, he said he wished we could've met under different circumstances. He said I was cute, and we probably would've hit it off." When the two got back to the house, Reginald Carr raped H.G. and ejaculated in her mouth. Jonathan Carr raped Miss Muller again, and then he raped H.G. one more time. Afterwards, the intruders ransacked the house looking for money. They found a coffee can containing an engagement ring Jason Befort had bought for his girlfriend. "That's for you," he told H.G., "I was going to ask you to marry me." That is how H.G. learned her boyfriend planned to propose to her the following Friday, Dec. 22.

At one point, says H.G., Reginald Carr "said something that scared me. He said 'Relax. I'm not going to kill you yet.' "

The Final Ride

The Carrs led the victims outside into the freezing night. At midnight it had been 17.6 degrees, and there was snow on the ground. The Carrs let the women wear a sweater or sweatshirt, but they were barefoot, and naked from the waist down. The men were marched into the snow completely naked. The Carrs tried to force all the victims into the trunk of Aaron Sander's Honda Accord, but realized five people would not fit, and made only the men get into the trunk. Reginald Carr ordered H.G. to join him in Mr. Befort's truck, and Jonathan Carr drove the Accord with the three men in the trunk and Miss Muller inside. As Mr. Carr drove her off, H.G. noted the time: It was 2:07 a.m., three hours since the ordeal began.

After a short drive, both vehicles stopped in an empty field. Reginald Carr ordered H.G. to go sit with Miss Muller in Mr. Sander's car. A moment later, she saw the men line up in front of the Honda. In her testimony H.G. said, "I turned to Heather and said, 'They're going to shoot us.' "

The Carr brothers ordered H.G. and Miss Muller out of the car. Miss Muller stood next to Mr. Sander, her former boyfriend, while H.G. stood beside her boyfriend, Mr. Befort. The Carrs ordered them to turn away and kneel in the snow. "As I was kneeling, a gun shot went off," says H.G. "[Then] I heard Aaron [Sander]. . . . I could distinguish Aaron's voice. He said, 'Please, no sir, please.' The gun went off."

H.G. heard three shots before she was hit: "I felt the bullet hit the back of my head. It went kind of gray with white like stars. I wasn't knocked unconscious. I didn't fall forward. Then someone kicked me, and I had fallen forward. I was playing dead. I didn't move. I didn't want them to shoot me again."

As H.G. lay in the snow, the Carrs drove off in Jason Befort's pickup, running over the victims as they left. H.G. says she felt the truck hit her body, too.

"I waited until I couldn't hear any more," she says. "Then I turned my head and saw lights going. I looked at everyone. Everyone was face down. Jason [Befort] was next to me. I rolled him over. There was blood squirting everywhere, so I took my sweater off and tied it around his head to try and stop it. He had blood coming out of his eyes."

In the distance, H.G. saw Christmas lights. Barefoot and naked, with a bullet wound in the head, she managed to walk more than a mile in the freezing cold, through snow, across a field and construction site, around a pond, and through the brush, until she reached the house with the lights. She pounded frantically on the door and rang the doorbell until the young married couple who lived there woke up. "Help me, help me, help me," she pleaded. "We've all been shot. Three of my friends are dead." (At the time, H.G. thought her boyfriend was still alive.)

The couple wrapped H.G. in blankets, and reached for the phone to dial 911, but she would not let them call. She was afraid she would die, and wanted to tell what had happened. She described the attackers and what they did, as the couple listened in amazement at her courage and determination. Only when she was sure they knew her story did she let them call the police. Still thinking she would die, she asked them to call her mother-"Tell her I love her"-and her boyfriend's parents. She was worried about the children she teaches, and kept wondering "Who's going to take care of the kids in school?"

This summary is taken from American Renaissance. Skeptics may cross-check Jared's facts with a pre-trial transcript here. Here's another source.

           The media would usually trumpet a case this lurid and dramatic to the whole world. But it didn't happen here. Why? No commercial potential? Mr. Capote and  The New Yorker would be surprised to hear that:
Quote
In Cold Blood: A True Account of a Multiple Murder and Its Consequences, by Truman Capote (ISBN 0679745580), details the 1959 murders of Herbert Clutter, a wealthy farmer from Holcomb, Kansas; his wife, Bonnie; his 16-year-old daughter, Nancy; and his 15-year-old son, Kenyon, and the aftermath. Capote said that he had created a new type of book, the non-fiction novel, by applying traditional literary conventions to crime reporting. Critics debate whether Capote invented this type of writing. [1]

Capote learned of the quadruple slaying from a news article in The New York Times. He decided to go to Kansas and write about the murders, even before the killers, Richard "Dick" Hickock and Perry Smith, were captured. He brought his childhood friend and fellow author Harper Lee with him. Together they interviewed the local residents and the investigators assigned to the case. Capote and Lee took thousands of pages of notes, and Capote spent years working on the book, which was serialized during 1965 in The New Yorker. After the book was published in January 1966, it was adapted into both a theatrical film drama and a TV movie.

Of course, Caspote's case has one difference: the white complexion of the victims and murderers.

Oh, but surely there were even juicier cases occupying the media's time? Perhaps. But Michelle Malkin disagrees:
Quote
The first trial was held in Beverly Hills. The accused was Hollywood starlet Winona Ryder, charged with shoplifting at a Saks Fifth Avenue store. A Nexis search turned up more than 500 stories on the trial published over the past week alone. Television, news and radio reporters from around the world breathlessly described Ryder's daily court attire—her hairbands, her coatdresses, her shoes, her bra straps, her lipstick.

We learned the all-important details of how she appeared "pale" one day, "chipper" the next. Crack news reporters informed us that she is "doe-eyed" and "petite." Talking heads endlessly scrutinized the trial evidence, tapes and testimony. Psychologists explained the motivations of kleptomaniacs. Entertainment insiders parsed Ryder's film career for clues.

On Wednesday, the cable shows provided "breaking news" coverage of the guilty verdicts and wall-to-wall analysis of What This Means For Winona. The New York Times and Washington Post followed up with bylined news articles.

This, you see, was news that mattered. News fit to print.
[...]
When such senseless, evil savagery takes place against politically correct victims, the mainstream media is quick to make national news of such crimes. "If this had been two white males accused of killing four black individuals, the media would be on a feeding frenzy and every satellite news organization would be in Wichita doing live reports," wrote Trent Hungate of Wichita in a letter to the Wichita Eagle after the killings two years ago. Indeed. The horrific James Byrd dragging case in Texas and the Matthew Shepard murder in Wyoming, for example, garnered front-page headlines and continuous coverage.

But with the exception of local Kansas newspapers, the Associated Press, The Washington Times, Fox News, Court TV and conservative Internet sites, the Carr trial made almost no news.

And keep in mind that The Washington Times was founded by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon and is widely considered a "wingnut newsrag". Fox News? Conservative, baby. Now if the murderers had spoken Spanish, well......so that leaves the AP. You know, the wire service who learned a few tricks from the Dreyfus affair. But what about Court TV?
Quote
Court TV originally said they would broadcast the entire trial.  Then they "changed their mind" and said they would only broadcast the opening statements of the prosecuting and defense attorneys and the testimony of the survivor--but then they mysteriously "changed their mind" again and only provided a few brief news reports about the trial.

Oh.

In short, there's absolutely no reason, financial or otherwise, for this case to go unheard. Well, maybe one.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:23   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 09 2006,18:35)
In short, there's absolutely no reason, financial or otherwise, for this case to go unheard. Well, maybe one.....

…because the "liberal" press is hoping whites will remain unafraid of blacks, so blacks can kill all the white people?

Where are you going with this, Bill? You claim to have uncovered a crime. Could you favor us with your interpretation as to motive?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,05:31   

It's amazing how easy it is to prove a broad, overarching thesis with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.  The mainstream media is clearly racist against white people, I'm convinced.  No doubt about it.  In fact, I think this story proves not only that, but just about anything else one might want it to prove.  Gravity a myth?  Yep, look at the Carr case.  Pigs fly?  Carr murders.  2+2 = 3.14159? Carr Carr Carr Carr Carr.  

GoP, you're a genius.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:02   

Now, let's not jump to conclusions. Sure, it may seem like Ghosty's horror story has no point, but clearly he's just staging a cliff-hanger. Obviously in Part 2 he's going to tie it all together and show how it actually proves something. Probably that's when he'll explain how the Central Park Jogger case, which would seem to run counter to his thesis, is actually the exception that proves the rule.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,06:05   

Quote (Russell @ May 11 2006,11:02)
Now, let's not jump to conclusions. Sure, it may seem like Ghosty's horror story has no point, but clearly he's just staging a cliff-hanger. Obviously in Part 2 he's going to tie it all together and show how it actually proves something. Probably that's when he'll explain how the Central Park Jogger case, which would seem to run counter to his thesis, is actually the exception that proves the rule.

I'm sure this all connects to Ward Churchill somehow.

Gosh, if only GoP spent as much time on his science as he does on his politics, we'd all be convinced the sun revolves around the earth by now...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,13:39   

O's T:
Quote
It's amazing how easy it is to prove a broad, overarching thesis with a single piece of anecdotal evidence.  The mainstream media is clearly racist against white people, I'm convinced.  No doubt about it.

Glad you saw the light. But I showed more than a "single piece of anecdotal evidence", or haven't you read the thread? Besides, if you reject anecdotal evidence, then you must despise the media's attempts to prove institutional discrimination against minorities through....anecdotes. After all, the liberal case is based on retelling (and retelling, and retelling) the James Byrd, Amadou Diallo, and Yusuf Hawkins tragedies. Speaking of Yusuf, there's an eerie parallel between his ordeal and two other ones:
Quote
In Paved with Good Intentions, Jared Taylor recounts a 1989 incident that occurred in The Bronx one month after the Yusuf Hawkins killing. A white man got out of his car on predominantly black East Tremont Avenue to use a telephone. A black man approached him, said, “What are you white guys doing on Tremont? You don’t belong here,” and gut-shot the white. The story was suppressed by the media, ignored by politicians, and discounted by black activists. (At the time, I had a foster-care client on East Tremont Avenue, which looked like a war had just ended, but I didn’t hear about the black-on-white shooting. The woman, a crackhead, lived atop a hilly street. When I went for a home visit and she wasn’t there, I literally ran downhill to a pay phone a block away, to call her neighbor. Meanwhile, the media had already started telling the fairy tale about the “renaissance” the South Bronx, which included East Tremont, was enjoying.)

Breaking Through the Media Wall of Silence

Note that when a mob of some thirty black junior high school students savagely beat six white girls while shouting racial epithets (“black power!” “honky b—–s!” “white crackers!” “Martin Luther King!” — go figure), in Marine Park, Brooklyn, on March 30 of this year, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly ignored the case, the media refused to report on it, and the NYPD covered up the attack’s racial character.

See here for more detail:
Quote
In one recent incident, on March 30 in Marine Park, Brooklyn, six white Catholic school girls from St. Edmond’s high school were attacked for 20 minutes by approximately 30 black boys and girls who beat the girls to a pulp, while shouting racial epithets (“black power!” "honky b-----s!" “white crackers!” “Martin Luther King!”). (Five of the victims were 15 years old; one was older.) The NYPD censored the racial epithets from police reports, and the New York media likewise refused to report on the attack. However, when a little community newspaper broke through the wall of silence, and Internet sites publicized the story nationwide, the mainstream media were forced to report on the attack. And yet, a number of mainstream reporters displayed more anger at the gutsy little newspaper and reporter that scooped them, and the Web sites, than at the attackers.

As the white girls were playing basketball, a group of six black girls from nearby Marine Park Junior High School ordered them to surrender the court. The white girls refused, and according to Brooklyn Skyline reporter Marianna Hernandez, some adults intervened, telling the black girls to wait their turn.

Though they were in a largely white neighborhood, the black girls were as contemptuous of the white adults as of the girls, and returned several times, each time with more black allies. Finally, when the mob reached about thirty 13 and 14-year-old black boys and girls, they swooped down on the white girls, punching, kicking, and stomping them. The victims’ wounds included chunks of hair ripped out of one girl’s head, a broken nose, a torn arm muscle, head trauma. One white victim ran into traffic to escape, and could easily have been killed.[hmmmmm....now where have I heard this before? - Paley] Indeed, had the attackers been older, they might have beaten to death some or all of the white girls. Two victims required hospitalization.

[my emphasis]

The author then proceeds to support these assertions. Keep digging yourself a hole, Russell - sooner or later you're bound to strike oil. By the way, is this the Central Park Jogger case you've been yammering about? It seems that some details got lost along the way....
Quote
Since seizing upon Matias Reyes, the mainstream media has so grossly misrepresented the case, as to all but erase the difference between them and their racist, black counterparts. A September 11 story by New York Daily News reporter Alice McQuillan, could have been written by the attackers' lawyers. McQuillan omitted all of the evidence that convicted the attackers, and quoted black supremacist attorney Roger Wareham (December 12th Movement), who represents attackers Antron McCray, Raymond Santana, and Kevin Richardson as saying, "They had made up their mind, they had somebody else, they didn't want anything to spoil their neatly tied package of convictions and they used these children as scapegoats." "Children," indeed. Meanwhile, Wareham's co-counsel, Michael Warren, insists that the confessions were gotten "through the most abhorrent form of psychological duress." With few exceptions, the New York media have followed McQuillan's example. But Alice McQuillan is a fearless truth-teller, compared to the Village Voice's Dasun Allah, who fabricated a new history, whereby whites had invented the term "wilding," in order to "brand black youth." The movement to clear the five Central Park attackers must be seen in the context of movements to free other blacks convicted of heinous crimes. One such movement supported former Black Panther Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin (H. Rap Brown), convicted last year, and sentenced to life, for his 2000 assassination of Fulton County, Georgia Sheriff's Deputy Ricky Kinchen, and for seriously wounding Deputy Aldranon English. The king of such movements seeks the release of former Black Panther Mumia abu Jamal (Wesley Cook), on death row for the 1981 assassination of Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Abu-Jamal/Cook and Al-Amin/Brown's supporters insist that their heroes, too, were railroaded. Note too that Al-Amin's victims were both black. According to black supremacist belief, black law enforcement officers who arrest, rather than aid black criminals, are traitors to the race. Such beliefs owe their influence to their enthusiastic support by white elites in the media, education, and even law enforcement.


--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,13:42   

Quote

Gosh, if only GoP spent as much time on his science as he does on his politics, we'd all be convinced the sun revolves around the earth by now...

LOL so you're saying a silk purse can be made from a sow's ear, given enough time.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,14:00   

Quote
The author then proceeds to support these assertions. Keep digging yourself a hole, Russell - sooner or later you're bound to strike oil.
Here I am, sticking up for you, telling folks that, surely your next post would tell us what your point is, and you let me down again.
Quote
By the way, is this the Central Park Jogger case you've been yammering about? It seems that some details got lost along the way....
That's the case all right. The point that seems to have gotten lost - on you anyway - is that the wrong guys were convicted, amidst a great deal of press sensationalism about black on white crime. What's your point? That the wrongly convicted kids were dirtbags and therefore no one should lose any sleep over their being wrongly convicted? I think I'll take the press, with all its biases, over you and your biases, thank you very much. I think you're a lot more dangerous.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,14:16   

Eric:
Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 09 2006,18:35)
In short, there's absolutely no reason, financial or otherwise, for this case to go unheard. Well, maybe one.....

…because the "liberal" press is hoping whites will remain unafraid of blacks, so blacks can kill all the white people?

Where are you going with this, Bill? You claim to have uncovered a crime. Could you favor us with your interpretation as to motive?


Look, can we agree that massive immigration serves the interests of both liberals (gotta overturn the Evil West) and big bidness ("Those furriners sure work cheap, don't they?")? If you grant that, then it becomes clear that the media can't let Joe Sixpack get restless about the potential consequences of massive, uncontrolled immigration, which may include massive, uncontrolled violence against the native population. And since whites are responsible for the sorry state of___(fill in the blank), they make a better target for violence than anyone else. Given enough stories of minority-on-majority violence, even the dullest citizen may begin connecting the dots. And our plutocracy just can't abide that.

Russell:
Quote
The point that seems to have gotten lost - on you anyway - is that the wrong guys were convicted, amidst a great deal of press sensationalism about black on white crime.

Please read the link. Number one, the evidence convicting those fellas was pretty solid, so even if the prosecution was mistaken, then how would the media know this (absent a time machine)? Number two, the prosecutors may not have been completely wrong.
Quote
On the other hand, evidence tending to implicate Richardson included this: He led prosecutors to the scene of the crime. There were dirt and grass stains in the crotch of his undershorts. He confessed on videotape to being at the scene of the attack. He gave a detailed description of the attack. He admitted that the deep scratch wound on his cheek was inflicted by the jogger. But wait! The "Innocence Project" has produced an 11th-hour confession from a sixth rapist, Matias Reyes. Stunning no one but gullible reporters, he claims he acted alone. As is always the case with surprise confessions exonerating others, Reyes faces no penalty for this confession. To the contrary, Reyes is surely the toast of his cellblock ? where, by happenstance, he is serving time with another Central Park rapist, Kharey Wise. The statute of limitations has run on the rape and Reyes is already serving life in prison. Compare Reyes' new confession to the videotaped confessions of the five animals back in 1989. Their confessions would land them in prison. These were "statements against interest" in the strongest sense of the phrase. And yet, they still confessed. Their confessions were tested in court, attacked by defense counsel, and believed by two unanimous juries. But liberals treat these confessions as laughable frauds. Only Reyes' literally inconsequential confession is treated like Holy Scripture.
[....]
In 10 videotaped statements, members of the wolf pack implicated one another as well as themselves. They corroborated aspects of one another's stories. The police obtained statements from literally dozens of teen-agers who were in the park the night the jogger was attacked. In the end, only five of those who gave statements were prosecuted for the attack on the jogger. Consider that when the savages confessed, it was still possible that the jogger would emerge from her coma, remember everything, and identify her attackers with blinding clarity.

You may object to Ms. Coulter's anger and overheated language, but you gotta admit the facts are a bit more complicated than the media would have us believe.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,15:16   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ May 11 2006,19:16)
Look, can we agree that massive immigration serves the interests of both liberals (gotta overturn the Evil West) and big bidness ("Those furriners sure work cheap, don't they?")? If you grant that, then it becomes clear that the media can't let Joe Sixpack get restless about the potential consequences of massive, uncontrolled immigration, which may include massive, uncontrolled violence against the native population. And since whites are responsible for the sorry state of___(fill in the blank), they make a better target for violence than anyone else. Given enough stories of minority-on-majority violence, even the dullest citizen may begin connecting the dots. And our plutocracy just can't abide that.

Is that really your fear, Bill? Massive immigration will lead to massive, uncontrolled violence against the native population? Is that what this is all about? You're really afraid of the brown hordes killing all us white folk?

Wow. Talk about much ado about nothing…

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,15:20   

Quote
Look, can we agree that massive immigration serves the interests of both liberals (gotta overturn the Evil West)
As both a card carrying liberal and holder of an undergrad physics degree, I can tell you Paley's understanding of liberals is roughly the same as his understanding of the -centricity of the solar system.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,15:53   

Quote
You may object to Ms. Coulter's anger and overheated language, but you gotta admit the facts are a bit more complicated than the media would have us believe.
My point exactly. The media would have had us believe that it was an open and shut case against the kids that, in fact, got convicted and spent years in prison.  The media did not question the police procedures that somehow produced confessions from kids that contradict the confession of Reyes. The media, in short, behaved exactly the way you say they never do: they hyped up a sensational story involving black-on-white crime.

And, no, I don't accept the word of Ann Coulter for anything. In the absence of any solid evidence to the contrary, I think it's generally a good bet that whatever Coulter says is pretty much the opposite of reality. Is Ms. Coulter not, though, a member of that MainStream Medium you're telling us not to trust?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,16:00   

Eric:
Quote
Is that really your fear, Bill? Massive immigration will lead to massive, uncontrolled violence against the native population?

No, although I don't discount a massive crime increase, a continued erosion of liberties, and a further decline in core Western values. And yes, a hugely disproportionate number of those victims will be white. And apparently many people share my concerns - that's why survey after survey shows the American (and European) public wants the government to control immigration.
Quote
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday found a majority of those surveyed want to make it a crime for foreigners to immigrate illegally to the USA and for Americans to help those illegal immigrants once they arrive.

Still, nearly two-thirds also say the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over time.
[....]
Eight in 10 say illegal immigration to the USA is "out of control." More than nine in 10 say it's important for the government to take steps this year to control the borders and deal with those illegal immigrants who already are here. The feelings about border security are particularly intense.

Yet most Americans are pessimistic about whether that effort could ever succeed.

Six in 10 say that no matter what the government does, a "sizable number" of illegal immigrants will be able to get into the country.

Or try here. Or here. But I'm sure you can set those paranoid loonies straight -  right, Eric? ???

I've got to start preparing my physics, guys.....

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2006,17:21   

Quote
No, although I don't discount a massive crime increase, a continued erosion of liberties, and a further decline in core Western values. And yes, a hugely disproportionate number of those victims will be white.


I don't know why you'd expect crime to go up, since it's been going down more or less steadily since the 1980s, during which time illegal immigration certainly hasn't gone down. Seems like hardly something to worry about, let alone get all up in arms about.
Quote
But I'm sure you can set those paranoid loonies straight -  right, Eric? ???


All by myself? Doubtful. I can't even persuade you.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,02:48   

Quote
I've got to start preparing my physics, guys.....
so I guess you're done here? You've shown us all you've got on the Mainstream Media's Liberal Agenda? Color me "unimpressed".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,04:49   

Quote
No, although I don't discount a massive crime increase, a continued erosion of liberties, and a further decline in core Western values.


Considering that Mexicans are about 98% catholic, are you saying that all these catholics lack western values?

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,05:03   

Quote
No, although I don't discount a massive crime increase, a continued erosion of liberties, and a further decline in core Western values. And yes, a hugely disproportionate number of those victims will be white. And apparently many people share my concerns - that's why survey after survey shows the American (and European) public wants the government to control immigration.

One almost doesn't know where to start. Could there possibly be any reason for defending and respecting a nation's borders besides fear of the terrible things people might do if they cross the borders without permission? What does nationality mean anyway?

And it's true that IF there is more crime and IF that crime is evenly distributed, then those with the most wealth and privilege will suffer more crime. Of course, both of these conditionals are false. In fact, there is less crime, and in fact, most crime is local - black on black, hispanic on hispanic, etc. But facts can't dent fears. I notice that Ghost expects crimes against whites to be disproportionate. Given the facts, this is unsupported. Not that support matters, I guess.

Ghost's surveys don't say WHY most people want to curb illegal immigration. Perhaps some of them genuinely do so out of fears contrary to observation. As for the "decline in core Western values", if there's any distinction between this code phrase and Ghost worrying about losing a privileged position, I haven't seen it.

(And as a supremely ironic footnote, there is some fairly compelling indication that the recent decline in crime rates is a direct downstream result of the legalization of abortion. It seems that legalized abortion took a major (and disproportionate) bite out of the birth rate among single, poor women in high-crime areas. Maybe Ghost thinks we should have maintained the high crime rate so as to defend "Western core values"?)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,08:05   

Um... Ghost, after reading your arguments for a possible motive for all this proposed liberal bias, I must say I have a problem. See, I'm having difficulty finding an example among those you mentioned (the undermined crimes) where the perpetrator was an immigrant. As a matter of fact, I'm having difficulty in finding anyone who wasn't an African American. Can you help me here?

Also, another thing, about your "Truman Capote" argument for denying a  commercial potential to the supposed undermining of the Wichita Massacre...

Now, I know you just quoted the AmRen site (you're too smart to propose an argument like that, it's just you're also too bored to bother coming up with your own)- but I really want to know: Do you actually believe that the only difference between the two events, as far as public sensation and media potential are concerned, is the murderers' race? I'd really like a straight answer.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,09:12   

Quote
I'd really like a straight answer.

Uh, far out. Can I have a unicorn? Huh, can I?

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,09:39   

stevestory:
Quote
Considering that Mexicans are about 98% catholic, are you saying that all these catholics lack western values?

This question actually touches upon my basic ambivalence towards our massive Hispanic immigration. On the one hand, Hispanic people(s) do seem to value hard work, faith, and family. On the other hand, their culture(s) also seems to suffer from high levels of crime, a pervasive anti-intellectualism, and a sense of entitlement that seems inseparable from their ethnic identity. They apparently view values such as sexual modesty and respectful attitudes toward women as "anglo", and have little incentive in preserving them. It could be worse - we could be invaded by Muslims like France, Denmark or The Netherlands. But at least the Danes are wising up to the true "benefits" of diversity:
Quote
* Living on the dole: Third-world immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.

* Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.

* Self-imposed isolation: Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.

* Importing unacceptable customs: Forced marriages - promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death - are one problem.

Another is threats to kill Muslims who convert out of Islam. One Kurdish convert to Christianity, who went public to explain why she had changed religion, felt the need to hide her face and conceal her identity, fearing for her life.

* Fomenting anti-Semitism: Muslim violence threatens Denmark's approximately 6,000 Jews, who increasingly depend on police protection. Jewish parents were told by one school principal that she could not guarantee their children's safety and were advised to attend another institution. Anti-Israel marches have turned into anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, openly calls on Muslims to "kill all Jews . . . wherever you find them."

* Seeking Islamic law: Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.

[also see the followup debate - it's a hoot! - Paley]

As for the Dutch:
Quote
THE first time the Dutch hoped it was a freak incident. But a second political murder in the Netherlands in the space of two years has left this country, which has long prided itself on its tolerant, liberal values, in deep shock. Dutch people fear that they may now live in a place where violence has become a way of settling differences of opinion—especially over rocky relations with a growing Muslim minority.

An outspoken and provocative film director, Theo van Gogh, was murdered in Amsterdam on the morning of November 2nd. A 26-year-old Dutch Moroccan apparently emptied a magazine of bullets into his victim, knifed him as he lay dying and left a note stabbed into his body. He was arrested after a shoot-out with police. Ironically, Mr Van Gogh was killed as he was cycling to the studio to finish editing a film about the previous political murder, of the flamboyant anti-immigrant populist Pim Fortuyn in May 2002. Fortuyn, whom Mr Van Gogh admired, was killed by an animal-rights activist of ethnic-Dutch origin. At the time the fact that the killer was neither Muslim nor an immigrant was greeted with relief by politicians and public alike.


No such relief this time. The victim was an outspoken and often offensive critic of Islam, who once called radical Islamist immigrants “a fifth column of goatfuckers”. His killer was a jallaba-clad Muslim immigrant and associate of a radical group that Dutch intelligence has been watching. Police arrested eight more Islamist suspects the next day. The justice minister said the murder stemmed from “radical Islamic beliefs”. Mr Van Gogh was killed a few months after the screening on television of his film “Submission”. The film, based on a screenplay by a Dutch parliamentarian, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, features a Muslim woman in a see-through burqa telling a story of abuse within her marriage; she has text from the Koran condoning family violence written on to her naked body.

Ms Hirsi Ali is a Somali refugee who has made a career in Dutch politics by standing against radical Islam and defending her adopted homeland's liberal values. She even quit the Dutch Labour Party for the liberals because she thought it too soft on illiberal Islam. Both she and Mr Van Gogh received death threats after “Submission” was shown. She accepted protection, but he waved the threats away, saying he was just “a merry village fool”. Who would want to kill somebody like that?
[...]
Despite the speedy condemnation of the murder by most Muslim organisations, it could still provoke a sharper clash. This is more worrying since the Netherlands is a country where, at least economically, immigrants do better than in many others. Although they are worse off than the ethnic Dutch, there is no immigrant underclass, and no real ghettos exist. Some immigrants are, like Ms Hirsi Ali, already joining the Dutch middle class, both in incomes and in lifestyle.

Uh - huh.
Geert Wilders might have a few things to say about that. More later.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,09:59   

Faid:
Quote
Now, I know you just quoted the AmRen site (you're too smart to propose an argument like that, it's just you're also too bored to bother coming up with your own)- but I really want to know: Do you actually believe that the only difference between the two events, as far as public sensation and media potential are concerned, is the murderers' race? I'd really like a straight answer.

No, there are other factors - some on your side, some on mine. Nevertheless, I do believe that if the Carr brothers had been white (and everything else had stayed the same), then the media would have been all over that story. It's got everything: sympathetic victims, sociopathic killers who rape, degrade, and mutilate their victims, and even a survivor's testimony. How could it have missed? Remember, the press was bored enough to cover the Winona shoplifting trial - why not a crime that mixes murder, sex, and ritual humiliation in such a commercially potent brew?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,10:34   

Not with a bang, but with a whimper, Bill.

It seems like this whole thread has basically come down to a pretty weak argument in favor of a peculiar flavor of xenophobia. Peculiar, given that xenophobia seems particularly inapplicable in a country composed almost entirely of immigrant populations.

Given that I live in a city where caucasians are in a distinct minority, and probably well over half of the city is composed of first- or second-generation immigrants, I can say with fair confidence that Bill's fears are poorly-founded. San Francisco doesn't seem to have an unusually-high crime rate for cities of its size, despite its huge immigrant population. I should know; I live smack downtown, the part of the city which in areas of the country where immigrants are far less visible, white flight is at its most obvious.

Could it be that Bill has it exactly backwards?

Also, I still haven't seen a persuasive argument as to why, exactly, the "liberal" mainstream media should be castigated for its perceived failure to whip up anti-immigrant hysteria.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2006,10:56