Let's Talk About Media

nsacpi said:
Well if someone is busting windows most reporters are not going to go up to the guy and ask him for his ideological affiliation. I wouldn't ask a reporter to do that if it might be unsafe. But there is a reportorial obligation to try and find as much information as possible about the motivations of people committing violent acts. It is an important part of the story.
Click to expand...

This due diligence is applied each time a white nationalist label is applied?

Heck, I wouldn’t expect that but can we shoot for 10% of the time? Is there a definition we can look to for reference that isn’t malleable?
 
thethe said:
It’s odd that when the perpetrators of racial attacks aren’t white that we never mention their race. Black people have been responsible for the majority of attacks against Asians in Cali and Jews in NY.

The fact that we can’t say what everyone knows shows how unserious these people are in protecting Asians/Jews for the sake of their well being.

It’s all based on a racial grievance scale. If you perpetrate crimes against those who are higher on the racial grievance scale than it’s a big story. In the other direction it’s effectively ignored.

Unserious people.
Click to expand...

In a lot of cases the racial/ethnic/religious affiliation of the criminal is not part of the story. Epstein was Jewish. Ghislaine Maxwell is Jewish. Leon Black is Jewish. But I don't think it is appropriate for a reporter to include any of that much less dwell on it when doing a piece on that story. To do so would be anti-semitic imo.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
In a lot of cases the racial/ethnic/religious affiliation of the criminal is not part of the story. Epstein was Jewish. Ghislaine Maxwell is Jewish. Leon Black is Jewish. But I don't think it is appropriate for a reporter to include any of that much less dwell on it when doing a piece on that story. To do so would be anti-semitic imo.
Click to expand...

Have to admit I have no clue who Leon black is. But in your other two examples you think the principle reason they are attacked is a religion?

This is your retort?

Come on man!
 
You don’t think Jews are targeting because of their religion in NY?

Are you actually going to make this claim?
 
thethe said:
You don’t think Jews are targeting because of their religion in NY?

Are you actually going to make this claim?
Click to expand...

I'm not making any empirical claim. I'm stating how I think media should be able to cover stories without conflating Muslims with terrorists, or whites with white supremacists, or Jews with a group of pedophiles who happen to be jewish.
 
nsacpi said:
In a lot of cases the racial/ethnic/religious affiliation of the criminal is not part of the story. Epstein was Jewish. Ghislaine Maxwell is Jewish. Leon Black is Jewish. But I don't think it is appropriate for a reporter to include any of that much less dwell on it when doing a piece on that story. To do so would be anti-semitic imo.
Click to expand...

So where would crowds of blacks rioting after Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown/George Floyd fall on this scale?
 
nsacpi said:
I'm not making any empirical claim. I'm stating how I think media should be able to cover stories without conflating Muslims with terrorists, or whites with white supremacists, or Jews with a group of pedophiles who happen to be jewish.
Click to expand...

But Jews are being attacked because of their religion in NY. Are you denying this?
 
Jaw said:
So where would crowds of blacks rioting after Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown/George Floyd fall on this scale?
Click to expand...

I would say there were two types of criminal activity that were associated with some of the demonstrations.

One type involved ideologically motivated groups using the cloak of a large crowd to act out their ideological (mostly anarchist) fantasies. Those stories should be covered for what they are. I think we all know that story. It is an important story. Sometimes it was covered well. Other times not. I'm not sure those stories have a racial angle that is worth covering. I know the head of the NAACP in Portland wrote some op-ed pieces decrying groups using the cover of racial justice protests to pursue an agenda contrary to his priorities. I think this was an under-covered aspect of some the violence in Portland.

The second type was out and out looting. That I think has a racial/socioeconomic aspect that IS part of the story.

I sense a desire on your part to conflate the people protesting Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown/George Floyd with "black rioters." My only response to that is an admittedly passive-aggressive iiwii.

That would be it is what it is for the initiated.

If it is any consolation, I will offer the observation that you have plenty of company on these boards in that regard. To name names. You, sturg, thethe. Sorry if I overlooked anyone. There are others.
 
Last edited:
They are black for the most part.

How loose is the white nationalist label used for the capital hill protest?

We can’t then say the looters who were primarily black are acting on their own grievances and therefore black nationalist?
 
thethe said:
They are black for the most part.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Some of the protests this summer against police brutality looked mostly white to me.

The part I wonder about is the label "black rioters" applied to people who happen to have a pretty good cause and in the vast majority of cases were exercising their rights peacefully.

As I said it is what it is.
 
nsacpi said:
I don't know about that. Some of the protests this summer against police brutality looked mostly white to me.

The part I wonder about is the label "black rioters" applied to people who happen to have a pretty good cause and in the vast majority of cases were exercising their rights peacefully.

As I said it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Well I was talking about the looting although it is a very accurate statement to say even most of the protestors were black.

Bottom line is it was a racial group expressing their grievances. When it’s white pepper it’s white nationalism. When it’s black people it’s not dared uttered.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
Well I was talking about the looting although it is a very accurate statement to say even most of the protestors were black.

Bottom line is it was a racial group expressing their grievances. When it’s white pepper it’s white nationalism. When it’s black people it’s not dared uttered.
Click to expand...

It would be wrong for the media to call the people who invaded the Capitol on January 6 white insurrectionists. But the motivations and ideological perspectives of those people are an important part of the story. And sadly that includes white supremacy for a number of them. That's a very important part of the story. I don't know why y'all so sensitive about this. It is widely accepted that most whites are not white supremacist. If it helps I will post it a few more times. In exchange, I hope you will recognize that the overwhelming majority of people out protesting were not "black rioters."
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
It would be wrong for the media to call the people who invaded the Capitol on January 6 white insurrectionists. But the motivations and ideological perspectives of those people are an important part of the story. And sadly that includes white supremacy for a number of them. That's a very important part of the story. I don't know why y'all so sensitive about this. It is widely accepted that most whites are not white supremacist. If it helps I will post it a few more times. In exchange, I hope you will recognize that the overwhelming majority of people out protesting were not "black rioters."
Click to expand...

I’d agree with the last part completely. I’m just looking for consistency when the accused is white. We all know that doesn’t happen.
 
nsacpi said:
I would say there were two types of criminal activity that were associated with some of the demonstrations.

One type involved ideologically motivated groups using the cloak of a large crowd to act out their ideological (mostly anarchist) fantasies. Those stories should be covered for what they are. I think we all know that story. It is an important story. Sometimes it was covered well. Other times not. I'm not sure those stories have a racial angle that is worth covering. I know the head of the NAACP in Portland wrote some op-ed pieces decrying groups using the cover of racial justice protests to pursue an agenda contrary to his priorities. I think this was an under-covered aspect of some the violence in Portland.

The second type was out and out looting. That I think has a racial/socioeconomic aspect that IS part of the story.

I sense a desire on your part to conflate the people protesting Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown/George Floyd with "black rioters." My only response to that is an admittedly passive-aggressive iiwii.

That would be it is what it is for the initiated.

If it is any consolation, I will offer the observation that you have plenty of company on these boards in that regard. To name names. You, sturg, thethe. Sorry if I overlooked anyone. There are others.
Click to expand...

I included Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin to make that easier for you. I hope you can understand why I find it discouraging that someone I have respect for has no issue citing "white nationalism" for things like Proud Boys or the Capitol riot where non-white agitators played major roles, but can't cite the race of rioters when that race makes up something like 13% of the US population but the majority of rioters/arsonists/looters/assaulters in the wake of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or George Floyd.
 
Jaw said:
I included Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin to make that easier for you. I hope you can understand why I find it discouraging that someone I have respect for has no issue citing "white nationalism" for things like Proud Boys or the Capitol riot where non-white agitators played major roles, but can't cite the race of rioters when that race makes up something like 13% of the US population but the majority of rioters/arsonists/looters/assaulters in the wake of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, or George Floyd.
Click to expand...

the insurrectionists were a mixed group in terms of ideology...who were these non-white agitators who played major roles...as far as i can tell there was one main agitator and he looks pretty white to me

anyhow i have tried to explain why the terms "white insurrectionists" and "black rioters" are wrong...to me they are both wrong in the same way
 
Last edited:
You're not familiar with the recent Hispanic leader of the Proud Boys, or the guy who used to instigate at BLM rallies and did the same at the Capitol, before selling his video of the Capitol Police shooting to a couple of media outlets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top