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: 13407 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?!!!!"         -------------- 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?!!!!"         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: 5286 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. -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 1552 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: 13407 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&) 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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: 13407 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!       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   ) 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!       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 2006,172][/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. 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) 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& 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*   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.   -------------- 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: 13407 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.