Media Coverage of the Black Lives Matter Shootings

So what you are saying is, this is really symptomatic of a larger problem. I.e., "the public," i.e. the media consumer, gets the coverage in more or less an accurate proportion to their amount of interest. I think that is probably accurate. I guess I wonder then how do you change public interest in what is to me part of a huuuuuuuuge and uniquely American problem (i.e. black/white race relations and racial politics in the US)?

I think, and this might be hugely unpopular to suggest (to Americans), that the U.S. really needs something like the BBC or CBC. Most avenues by which Americans get their news just suck. In terms of being news delivery mechanisms they fail big time. They oversensationalise and and do whatever it takes to get viewers. They don't care about journalism or reporting honest unbiased news. They just want $$$.

So obviously that is never going to happen, I don't think anyway.. but I think we'd have similar issues here in Canada if we didn't have the CBC and we had huge race relation issues in our country as well. Right-leaning people would turn to Fox News North or whatever, and left-leaning Canadians would turn to whatever. It would divide the country even more, since people wouldn't really be getting the news, but rather oversensationalised garbage wrapped up in whatever biases are convenient at the time. And that sort of reporting makes it easy for people to "Dig in their heels" and make it feel like there is an "us vs them" dynamic happening, but in reality that might just be a tactic the publisher is using to get more viewers. It divides the country further and instead of helping it hurts the issue by misinforming and dividing people further.

I think another related issue is that in most TV markets in the U.S. (middle class?) white families make up most of that highly sought after demographic. So even if there is no malice intended, programming is going to cater more to them than other groups.
 
So shooting people is free speech then?
This is just another pathetic misrepresentation of what has actually been said. And I'm sure you know that yourself.
 
It's not a matter of whether you agree with what a protester has to say or what they stand for. It's a matter of whether they have the right to do so.

If you can justify today that one person or group should not be able to express their opinion or protest, then what happens in the future if the political winds shift the other way?

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
---Evelyn Beatrice Hall
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evelynbeat109645.html

So what say you of the likes of Britain, Germany or Austria, do they not have free speech? This is why people find americans so condescending.
 
It's not surprising. I am admittedly not really saying anything too insightful. I guess I thought this was an apt, timely demonstration of it.

I clearly see it, you clearly see it, minority groups have always seen it. What is surprising is how hard it is to convince someone who doesn’t see it. The arguments always get sidetracked into the details where you can find some way of spinning a plausible distraction from the broader point and don’t see how you spin it one way for one incident and another way for another incident. People have a very strongly entrained narrative of themselves and groups (nation, class, race, religion) that they identify with that is quite difficult to challenge and they are quite tenacious and clever in preventing it from being pierced.
 
So shooting people is free speech then?

The part of the free speech is regardless of whether or not you like / agree with certain groups of people, that all people have the same rights of protest.

In the initial case, the white supremacists in this case were literally doing nothing wrong or provocative by simply turning up:

1) They have the same freedom to attend, gather and protest in public spaces as anybody else

2) They have the same right to wear whatever they want as anybody else also does.

3) (unique to the USA) They have the right to bear arms.

4) (arguable part here) They have to right to use those arms for self defense.

As for points 1-3, according to the USA's constitutional rights, the white supremacists were doing absolutely nothing wrong compared to any other citizen's rights to do the same thing.

The only point that is actually arguable in this case would be point 4.
 
This is just another pathetic misrepresentation of what has actually been said. And I'm sure you know that yourself.

Don't be so hasty in calling other's arguments pathetic when you've engaged in a healthy dose of whataboutism.

In the initial case, the white supremacists in this case were literally doing nothing wrong or provocative by simply turning up:

You are seriously naive if you honestly believe this.

Guys guys im sure the white neo-nazis weren't there to provoke anybody and only had the best of intentions
 
So what say you of the likes of Britain, Germany or Austria, do they not have free speech? This is why people find americans so condescending.

Erm you say Britain doesn't have free speech?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary


Link to video.

We in fact do, and we have it much worse than the USA.

Guys guys im sure the white neo-nazis weren't there to provoke anybody and only had the best of intentions

Again, absolutely no one has claimed that. The claim is that anyone, no matter their intentions or what they say, have the same right to free speech and assembly / protest as any other citizen, no matter what their intentions are.
 
Don't be so hasty in calling other's arguments pathetic when you've engaged in a healthy dose of whataboutism.
Oh, I am sure I have. But I'm very certain that within the last 60 Minutes or so I have not done anything as stupid as answering to what basically amounted to "They had every right to be there." with "So shooting people is free speech then?", when it was clearly established - and you even made that point earlier today - that they had not turned up and started shooting randomly.

Yes, the people tried to provoke, but BLM were the first ones who did something legally wrong in the thread of events, it's as easy as that.
BLM has a protest (legal) -> people show up to annoy them (legal) -> BLM assaults them (NOT legal)
 
I think, and this might be hugely unpopular to suggest (to Americans), that the U.S. really needs something like the BBC or CBC. Most avenues by which Americans get their news just suck. In terms of being news delivery mechanisms they fail big time. They oversensationalise and and do whatever it takes to get viewers. They don't care about journalism or reporting honest unbiased news. They just want $$$.

So obviously that is never going to happen, I don't think anyway.. but I think we'd have similar issues here in Canada if we didn't have the CBC. Right-leaning people would turn to Fox News North or whatever, and left-leaning Canadians would turn to whatever. It would divide the country even more, since people wouldn't really be getting the news, but rather oversensationalised garbage wrapped up in whatever biases are convenient at the time.

I think another related issue is that in most TV markets in the U.S. (middle class?) white families make up most of that highly sought after demographic. So even if there is no malice intended, programming is going to cater more to them than other groups.

We have PBS and NPR, which I regularly go to for news (on the radio mostly). Sort of our American version of the BBC and an annual target for de-funding by Republicans.

I think there is still an internal problem with the media though, i.e. the "levers of power" in the media, like in any other major industry, are predominantly entrenched white moneyed interests. It might not actually be "actively" racist but is works to maintain the status quo because the status quo is obviously profitable. So if there is a particular narrative that someone wants pushed, the easy example if obviously Fox News, they can push it and people eat it up. I think if there was a genuine desire to really focus more on police brutality and racially motivated terrorism against black people in a more realistic proportion to how it much it actually matters, you'd see more coverage and I think it would actually help change the deep rooted inherent biases so many of us grow up within and which through a sort of cultural osmosis seep into our brains and our perceptions of reality, no matter how conscious of it we try to be and how much we try to work against it (or not, as the case may be).

I think you could still do that as a capitalist media mogul in this country. I don't think there is a desire to make money doing that though, and I think the root cause of that is deeply entrenched, systemic racism trickling up, or down, depending on how you look at it, to seemingly unwitting accomplices (i.e. consumers and frontline reporters and editors). I.e. a mix of innate racial bias and laziness perpetuating the status quo.
 
The part of the free speech is regardless of whether or not you like / agree with certain groups of people, that all people have the same rights of protest.

In the initial case, the white supremacists in this case were literally doing nothing wrong or provocative by simply turning up:

1) They have the same freedom to attend, gather and protest in public spaces as anybody else

2) They have the same right to wear whatever they want as anybody else also does.

3) (unique to the USA) They have the right to bear arms.

4) (arguable part here) They have to right to use those arms for self defense.

As for points 1-3, according to the USA's constitutional rights, the white supremacists were doing absolutely nothing wrong compared to any other citizen's rights to do the same thing.

The only point that is actually arguable in this case would be point 4.

This is a total deflection from the point of the OP. I agree with all your points on free speech (yes Nazis can march in the US) but it is not the topic of the thread. For your point to be relevant it would need to address how the media and culture would react to armed masked black men protesting at a chamber of commerce meeting. It never happens because that exercise of rights would likely result in a violent confrontation with the state. The thread is about how we view and report in the media actions of groups based on the race of the group.
 
I see no problem with hate speech laws. I'm just wondering Bhavv, you've already given white supremecists the benefit of the doubt and now you're claiming hate-speech laws reduce freedom of speech...

What is your end goal?

Yes, the people tried to provoke, but BLM were the first ones who did something legally wrong in the thread of events, it's as easy as that.

That?
 
I think there is still an internal problem with the media though, i.e. the "levers of power" in the media, like in any other major industry, are predominantly entrenched white moneyed interests. It might not actually be "actively" racist but is works to maintain the status quo because the status quo is obviously profitable.

Yeah, when your media is for the most part all owned by old white guys, and your target demographics are for the most part white middle class families (or whoever, I'm guessing at that part I guess), then it shouldn't be a surprise, when you look at all the involved variables, that some stories are going to get more attention than others, even if nobody is actively racist when deciding what story to publish and how.
 
The part of the free speech is regardless of whether or not you like / agree with certain groups of people, that all people have the same rights of protest.

In the initial case, the white supremacists in this case were literally doing nothing wrong or provocative by simply turning up:

1) They have the same freedom to attend, gather and protest in public spaces as anybody else

2) They have the same right to wear whatever they want as anybody else also does.

3) (unique to the USA) They have the right to bear arms.

4) (arguable part here) They have to right to use those arms for self defense.

As for points 1-3, according to the USA's constitutional rights, the white supremacists were doing absolutely nothing wrong compared to any other citizen's rights to do the same thing.

The only point that is actually arguable in this case would be point 4.

Just because you have the "right" to do something doesn't automatically make "that thing" OK, or not provocative, or whatever. So you have the "right" to wear a ski mask and carry a gun and film protesters...so what? That doesn't make it not provocative, or even justifiable at all, nor does it somehow flip the narrative to make shooting people justified. Especially if your express purpose was to be there to provoke people and then shoot them.

We are really going out on a limb here, based on some random youtube video, about this being "self defense" anyway. It is a convenient narrative to perpetuate this idea that somehow this was an unruly group of black people and they need to just stop being so uppity and let armed camo wearing white people in ski masks be threatening and provocative. Kind of fits with how (white) people have perceived black resistance movements for centuries, i.e. accept our fear and (violent) intolerance of you if you want us to listen to your demands. Hold yourselves to a higher unreasonable standard...etc.
 
So what say you of the likes of Britain, Germany or Austria, do they not have free speech? This is why people find americans so condescending.

This incident happened in America. I am an American. I am speaking to an American issue from an American point of view.
The US has freedom of speech enshrined within the 1st Amendment to its Constitution.

I am not familiar with the laws and constitutions of Britain, Germany or Austria.
I suspect that each of those countries does have "freedom of speech". Whether they spell it out in their constitution, or in their laws, or by judicial precedent is up to them. That they have "freedom of speech" in whatever format they have it, is commendable IMHO. How they formalize "freedom of speech" (constitution, law or judicial precedent) is up to them and none of my business.
 
Just because you have the "right" to do something doesn't automatically make "that thing" OK, or not provocative, or whatever. So you have the "right" to wear a ski mask and carry a gun and film protesters...so what? That doesn't make it not provocative, or even justifiable at all, nor does it somehow flip the narrative to make shooting people justified. Especially if your express purpose was to be there to provoke people and then shoot them.
It totally makes it okay, they were allowed to do it. So it's okay. What else would you use as an objective standard? You own moral judgement?

Imagine there was a white supremacist meeting and black people showed up with clown masks and hidden guns. Would you then say it's justified for the white supremacists to assault them? No? Yeah, thought so.

Your personal evaluation doesn't mean anything, you can find it outrageous and 99.999% of all people can agree with you, as long as it's not against the law it's still fine for them to do. And that's how it should be, laws are there for a reason - to govern stuff like this without discriminating against anyone based on personal beliefs, moral judgement and stuff like that.

If you want to change that, try to change the law, but then you'll need to live with the fact that you're restricting the freedom for everyone, not just the ones that you disagree with. You can't just change the law for one group, it's an "All or nothing"-thing, which is why your position is just silly unless you really want to reduce or get rid of the freedom of expression.
We are really going out on a limb here, based on some random youtube video, about this being "self defense" anyway. It is a convenient narrative to perpetuate this idea that somehow this was an unruly group of black people and they need to just stop being so uppity and let armed camo wearing white people in ski masks be threatening and provocative. Kind of fits with how (white) people have perceived black resistance movements for centuries, i.e. accept our fear and (violent) intolerance of you if you want us to listen to your demands. Hold yourselves to a higher unreasonable standard...etc.
Could you quote anyone who claims that it was self-defense? It -could- have been self-defense, or it could not have been, that's the position I and some other people take. We will probably never know, unless the people with the guns confess that they have indeed not been in danger. The fact that BLM turned off the cameras when they started assaulting people makes this unknowable to us.
 
I see no problem with hate speech laws. I'm just wondering Bhavv, you've already given white supremecists the benefit of the doubt and now you're claiming hate-speech laws reduce freedom of speech...

What is your end goal?
[My bold emphasis above].

If another country (other than the United States) wants to pass hate speech laws, that is up to them. It's THEIR business.

As for the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled (I previously cited 6-7 SCOTUS cases in another thread) that hate crime laws that infringe on the First Amendment are unconstitutional.
 
It totally makes it okay, they were allowed to do it. So it's okay. What else would you use as an objective standard? You own moral judgement?

Imagine there was a white supremacist meeting and black people showed up with clown masks and hidden guns. Would you then say it's justified for the white supremacists to assault them? No? Yeah, thought so.

Your personal evaluation doesn't mean anything, you can find it outrageous and 99.999% of all people can agree with you, as long as it's not against the law it's still fine for them to do.

If you want to change that, try to change the law, but then you'll need to live with the fact that you're restricting the freedom for everyone, not just the ones that you disagree with. You can't just change the law for one group, it's an "All or nothing"-thing, which is why your position is just silly unless you really want to reduce or get rid of the freedom of expression.

Could you quote anyone who claims that it was self-defense? It -could- have been self-defense, or it could not have been. We will probably never know, unless the people with the guns confess that they have indeed not been in danger. The fact that BLM turned off the cameras when they started assaulting people makes this unknowable to us.

If you don't know then what are you arguing about? Why are you deflecting the topic if you don't know what happened?

I'm not advocating to change the law or anything, I am not talking about restricting free speech. We can agree to disagree on the finer points of what is and is not the legal use of deadly force in self defense. I am talking about the media and perception and inherent biases playing into how we cover certain events.

To get back on track, I will just ask you and the entire thread a simple question: if black people showed up in ski masks at a, I don't know, pro-life rally, and the pro-life people did the same exact thing we saw here and were shot (assuming armed black people in ski masks and camo and bullet proof vests were able to roll up on a rally unassaulted by police, a big assumption) do you think this would get more coverage from the national press? Do you think the coverage would be different in any way?

And wait, why are we analogizing BLM protesters to a white supremacist rally?? Mark's chamber of commerce example is probably a lot more apt. I changed my analogy in the question above to reflect this.
 
I wonder what the media would say if a group of Arabs turned up to an anti-immigration rally wearing military fatigues, that group was then confronted by some protesters, who physically assaulted the Arabs, whereupon the Arabs drew the weapons they'd brought along and fired into the protesters. I'd say the protesters who pursued the group would be hailed as heroes whose foresight and vigilance nearly stopped a terrorist attack.

I think the quantity of news coverage might be a different matter. I'm less convinced that random shooting #847 for the month in the US deserves front page attention, so much as certain other events deemed to be 'terrorist' perhaps deserve less attention.
 
Top Bottom