Media Coverage of the Black Lives Matter Shootings

[illram]

Yeah that's probably a better example. I'd wager that would be front page worthy news.

 

[chijohnaok]

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 white supremacist rally, and the white supremacists 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 white supremacist 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?

Were that scenario to happen I suspect that it would get quite a bit of coverage in the national media. Whether the volume would be any more (or any less) I don't know. But not for a second do I think that an incident with white supremacists (probably wearing white sheets & hoods or swastikas) assaulting black counter-protesters would be ignored by the national media.

I suspect that the national media's "general" coverage of such an event would be more sympathetic to the black counter protesters, probably because of the general dislike that most people in the United States (in the media and non-media) have for white supremacists groups. (By "general" I am not referring to any one national media source, but to the overall sentiment).

 

[illram]

Yes owing to the different contexts in that example I changed my question to reflect something a bit more neutral. I.e., black perople shooting white pro life protesters. I think Cami's example--arabs intentionally provoking and then shooting anti-immigration protesters--is actually probably the most "realistic" scenario, actually.

The cynic in me does think it is funny white supremacists were the first counter example to BLM protesters, and that I actually went along with it...

 

[Ryika]

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.

Because you are arguing for a position that is very different from what we actually know and make silly responses against people who make very real points such as: "So shooting people is free speech then?" as a response to somebody who basically said "They had every right to be there."

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 white supremacist rally, and the white supremacists 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 white supremacist 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?

If we assume the same chain of events? (White Supremacists hold an event -> Black people show up -> Black People are assaulted -> Black people shoot at the white supremacists) Yes, I think it would have gotten more coverage, for multiple reasons:

- A white supremacist rally would be a way more "interesting" event for the media than just BLM doing the same thing that they've been doing for a while now
- The white supremacists would probably react a lot more violently given that such a rally is basically built around hate
- Black people doing bad stuff seems to get more attention in general, so if they were to shoot at the white supremacists the reaction to that would probably a lot stronger

I'm not sure what the media narrative would be, but probably not that peaceful white supremacists were having a peaceful rally and were shot at by black attackers. The media reports would probably not skip over the assault done by the white supremacists.

 

[bhavv]

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.

And what this would be is ideological bias, hence the importance of one of the questions I already asked about the roles being reversed.

At the end of the day, to the media and to the majority, it doesn't matter who did what, the media will pick the target to blame based on race / religion / ideology, as will the liberals who choose whichever side to defend / oppose. There is never any consistency in such opinions, and both the media and the liberal response to such cases are ALWAYS filled with personal bias and hypocrisy.

E.G. If a black person shot a cop, the liberals would most likely immediately take the side of the black person regardless of the facts around the case. The majority white owned / catered for media would likely take the side of the cop, regardless of the facts around the case.

Judgements are always made based on personal biases and hypocrisies. If a white supremacist was mugged by a black person and in self defense, shot the attacker, would liberals ever take the side of the white supremacist? No they would not. They would find any and all ways, theories and loopholes to pin the blame on the white supremacist for being a white supremacist. And this is any different to to a white supremacists negative beliefs towards blacks or Muslims how? In no way whatsoever.

 

[Camikaze]

If we assume the same chain of events? (White Supremacists hold an event -> Black people show up -> Black People are assaulted -> Black people shoot at the white supremacists) Yes, I think it would have gotten more coverage, for multiple reasons:

- A white supremacist rally would be a way more "interesting" event for the media than just BLM doing the same thing that they've been doing for a while now
- The white supremacists would probably react a lot more violently given that such a rally is basically built around hate
- Black people doing bad stuff seems to get more attention in general, so if they were to shoot at the white supremacists the reaction to that would probably a lot stronger

I'm not sure what the media narrative would be, but probably not that peaceful white supremacists were having a peaceful rally and were shot at by black attackers. The media reports would probably not skip over the assault done by the white supremacists.

I think you're probably right that, if it were white supremacists, assault committed by them would be given some attention. I'd say that's because they are a 'suspect group', and it's why I think the anti-immigration rally example is a better one (and illram seems to agree). Note I'm talking run of the mill US anti-immigration protest here, not Pegida, whose national context does make them more of a 'suspect group'. I think in such a case the media would be much more ready to view what might otherwise be termed assault as pre-emptive self-defence. So are BLM protesters grouped with white supremacists or with a relatively benign group of activists? It's extremely hard to see why they are treated by some in the same way as the former.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, your post didn't exist yet when I started typing.

I think there are many reasons why BLM are lumped into the group that is reserved for white supremacists and the likes. Blatant racism is obviously one. More subtle racism in the form selective filtering of information is probably another one. And then there's also some quite extreme statements from BLM, like the guy yelling "Death to all cops and their kids!" (paraphrased) - which is never shown in the media, so it seems to me that the media - aside from the few far right ones that are known for pretty much always being shady anyway (Fox News...) - does not really consider them to be in that camp.

But like I already said, I can't really agree with the notion that BLM did not get media attention though. When the whole thing started there was a ton of attention all over the media. It started dying down over time and when the thing in Paris happened the interest was basically gone - hence the hashtag #F***paris (<- I hope it's okay to trick the censor here, just so people can find the hashtag if they want to), where some parts of BLM complain that the terror attack took away interest from their cause, called everyone who was paying attention white supremacists and nonsense like that.

This one event here was really the first one that I would even consider as being newsworthy, but I assume the majority of people would not really care that much, so I don't see a "bias" that would not meet up with people's interests anyway. (And I don't think that's race-based, it's just that when you get down to it nothing of too "interesting" happened.)

But anyway, to respond to your example:

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.

Yes, I think it is very likely that this case would get very different media attention. Even if the media were to report all factors, the discussion itself would probably center around the Arabs having weapons. I'd even assume that it would get a TON of attention.

But the facts themselves don't change - the protesters would still not be justified to attack the Arabs, the right response would be to ignore them (and/or call an authority <- And yes, I did not think about this as a possible necessity when the "white supremacists were the ones showing up at the protest, so I guess that's my bias here). It would also still be questionable whether the Arabs would have been justified to defend themselves. (And I would still be pointing out the bad journalism if they were to leave out parts of the story.)

 

[brennan]

The white supremecists went there with the sole intention of provoking people, which they got and then used that as an excuse to attack people, they got what they wanted. If for examples someone attends a bar mitzvah wearing a nazi uniform and they are attacked or followed/chased by the Jews attending it and they're carrying a gun and shoot someone, thats the person who is wearing the nazi uniform's FAULT not the people who reacted to him/her.

Now go ahead Ryika, explain to me why the white supremecists are not at fault here.

Victim blaming is only a thing if you like the victims hmm?

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, your post didn't exist yet when I started typing.

I think there are many reasons why BLM are lumped into the group that is reserved for white supremacists and the likes. Blatant racism is obviously one. More subtle racism in the form selective filtering of information is probably another one. And then there's also some quite extreme statements from BLM, like the guy yelling "Death to all cops and their kids!" (paraphrased) - which is never shown in the media, so it seems to me that the media - aside from the few far right ones that are known for pretty much always being shady anyway (Fox News...) - does not really consider them to be in that camp.

But like I already said, I can't really agree with the notion that BLM did not get media attention though. When the whole thing started there was a ton of attention all over the media. It started dying down over time and when the thing in Paris happened the interest was basically gone - hence the hashtag #F***paris (<- I hope it's okay to trick the censor here, just so people can find the hashtag if they want to), where some parts of BLM complain that the terror attack took away interest from their cause, called everyone who was paying attention white supremacists and nonsense like that.

This one event here was really the first one that I would even consider as being newsworthy, but I assume the majority of people would not really care that much, so I don't see a "bias" that would not meet up with people's interests anyway. (And I don't think that's race-based, it's just that when you get down to it nothing of too "interesting" happened.)

But anyway, to respond to your example:

Yes, I think it is very likely that this case would get very different media attention. Even if the media were to report all factors, the discussion itself would probably center around the Arabs having weapons. I'd even assume that it would get a TON of attention.

But the facts themselves don't change - the protesters would still not be justified to attack the Arabs, the right response would be to ignore them (and/or call an authority <- And yes, I did not think about this as a possible necessity when the "white supremacists were the ones showing up at the protest, so I guess that's my bias here). It would also still be questionable whether the Arabs would have been justified to defend themselves. (And I would still be pointing out the bad journalism if they were to leave out parts of the story.)

I'm coming late to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the facts, but I hesitate to tell unarmed people that the proper reaction to threats from armed people is to wait until they actually open fire. With that said, I echo Brennan's point: we can't apply double standards just because we don't like one group of unfairly-treated people.

 

[Ryika]

I'm coming late to this, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on the facts, but I hesitate to tell unarmed people that the proper reaction to threats from armed people is to wait until they actually open fire.

At this point it was not known that they were carrying guns.

I agree that if they had been showing their guns at that point, or even using them to threaten them, the situation would have been different.

 

[brennan]

I'd like to compare this incident with the Trayvon Martin case. It seems that these alleged white supremacists deliberately went armed with deadly weapons into a situation where a violent confrontation might occur. That is essentially what Zimmerman did. In both cases that is a negligent act that makes them criminally liable in the event that the weapons are used, irrespective of who threw the first punch.

 

[warpus]

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.

I think it depends on which part of the media you look at, since it's such a large field with so many different types of players. Mainstream media for the most part seems to be an attempt to maximize profits by appealing to the most profitable demographic and the lowest common denominator, in the most appealing fashion. That's sort of entwined with the concept of pop culture, and pop culture relies on past pop culture and culture in general as a base. And since there's a lot of racism in the past then yeah, there is as a result inherent racism in what the mainstream media pushes as trendy, such as associations between certain races and certain stereotypes and the way they are portrayed on the screen.

To give an example to clarify what I mean in that potentially confusing paragraph above, when they cast for a hero in your average mainstream Hollywood movie, they will usually look for a white guy in a certain age range, with certain characteristics, a certain body type, and so on. Arnold Schwarzenegger from 20 years ago = exactly the kind of guy you want. Deviate from that image, and you're getting further and further away from your ideal "Hollywood action hero" character. Not too long ago people of certain ethnic descent were not even considered for certain roles. The justification was that the audience would not accept a female or black starship captain, or whatever, and like I said the objective is exactly the opposite - to give that demographic something they will accept and eat up. Things have changed, but that base is still there and influences what the mainstream "will consider trendy" and what that target demographic "will want to see".

There are many people producing excellent media (whether it's movies, music, magazines, books, or whatever) that does not so blatantly stick to a pre-defined set of desirable characteristics though, whether it's male traits, female traits, the colour of the skin of certain characters, or whatever. It's out there, and I think all we can really do as consumers and citizens is to embrace that media instead of turning to whatever mainstream content producer who produces trendy cookie-cutter stuff instead.

Are we ever going to see a black James Bond? Maybe, and maybe we don't need a black James Bond to begin with. We all know that your average action movie is more likely than not going to stick to popular notions of which character does what, how they act, and what kind of person they are. We know that a lot of that stuff is going to be based on a characters' gender and race. Don't support media that does this so blatantly. There is content out there you can support that doesn't and I think if you want things to change, you have to either try to change popular notions and popular culture or embrace the media you want to see and reject the media that you don't. And since changing popular culture is not easy even if you are drake or somebody equivalent, I think the only option you really have is supporting the media you want to see (by offering your business, but maybe also our time)

 

[Berzerker]

well of course the gun hating lame stream media would ignore a gun owner defending them self from attack

 

[classical_hero]

The only person to say it was a bunch was "White Supremacists" was a spokeswoman for the movement Apparently we are taking her word for it without any examination. But the stor y seems to have changed.
http://www.weaselzippers.us/241575-5-shot-in-minneapolis-after-blacklivesmatter-protesters-surround-attack-and-chase-group/

The BLM has been unable to get their story straight. First, they said three white men in masks and bullet proof vests, now they say two white people and an Asian man. Apparently white supremacists aren&#8217;t what they used to be, they&#8217;re taking in Asians now&#8230;

Don't forget the first reports of the Michael Brown incident were totally inaccurate.

 

[REDY]

OT: I am suprised that there is not video/witness from police if the demonstration was in front of their station. Police should look after demonstrations, in black lives matter demonstrations preferably black policemen.

 

[Berzerker]

Hmm...what if it was black or Arab men at a white supremacist' protest and they were chased and assaulted by white supremacists?

I'd think thats a crime... If the victims were armed and shot several of the attackers and that ended the assault, I'd think that was self defense. If it isn't, then the assault must be legal, right? If the victims weren't armed and got beat up and sent to the hospital or morgue would anyone take the side of the criminals?

 

[illram]

Again, this is beside the point, but just because we are really, really going super far afield of what actually happened, I'll post an update on the story that might bring some of us back to reality.

The car full of white men would often shoot video of the protests. On Monday night, something changed. CBS Minnesota reporter Lorena Delacuesta said she sensed trouble just before the shooting began at the protest.

"These three guys come, three white men, covering their faces and they started arguing with the protesters," Delacuesta said.

Wesley Martin was among the protesters who escorted them away. Suddenly, shots rang out.

"I heard the N word and that's when everybody started charging," he said. "And we get to 14th and Morgan [avenues], and all I heard was pow...pow, pow, pow, pow, pow."

Martin was shot in the leg, and his brother was also hit.

...

Police haven't released a possible motive for the shootings of the protesters, but the shootings came after several racially disparaging comments about the protests were posted on social media. One video showed a white man brandishing a gun while claiming to be on his way to the protests. Police had issued a warning Friday night, asking demonstrators to be vigilant and report suspicious behavior to authorities.

Link.

 

[Kyriakos]

^They have the number of the car's plates, then?

Anyway, it looks like not very front-page news with the front-page news around at the moment...

 

[Berzerker]

Wesley Martin was among the protesters who escorted them away. Suddenly, shots rang out.

"I heard the N word and that's when everybody started charging

"Escorted them away"? Now thats media bias...

So before shots were fired Wesley and his fellow protesters "charged" (and assaulted) their victims.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You know there's volatile situation at a certain location.
You know there's highly agitated people about there.
You go there packing lethal weapons and make yourselves targets?

As far as I'm concerned, the self-defense claim is sketchy at best. Given the circumstances, I find it a little hard to believe that they were in such much danger to warrant using lethal force.