An article in CNN that will likely go unheeded by all of the major networks. In some alternate universe this was heeded decades ago in the ?? and everybody lived happily ever after...
Completely agree, and sadly it has to do with revenue dollars.
The stories being written and shared by news organizations need to attract as many eyes as possible for better ad revenue. You get that by sensualizing the headline and reporting on what more people will actually click on.
It is no longer about delivering news to inform the public, but about delivering news that the public wants to hear.
Biden's statement not only goes about 100x farther than Trump ever has, but has pissed off both the right (who are claiming this is his "very fine people" moment, which is absurd, because there actually ARE two sides to the violence this time) and the far-left who feels betrayed. At this point I would say "good". The street fighting is being carried out by two groups, anarchists (who hate Joe Biden) and Trump supporters (who hate Joe Biden) and yet, somehow, this is being framed as a Joe Biden problem. This is the "Bernie didn't win, burn it to the ground" crowd. The people who believed in 2016 that a Trump victory would cause enough radicalization to help their guy win. Who is to say they aren't purposefully doing so again??:
There is no downside to attacking the left-wing agitators. Biden's path to victory is not Bernie or Bust Marxists. It's senior citizens and suburban women, who are both inclined to vote for him. In every video I've ever seen of this shit, black protesters end up pleading with young, white morons to please stop breaking windows and setting things on fire, because (to paraphrase) THEY may be doing it, but the African-Americans on the street will be the ones who feel the wrath of law enforcement when the whip comes down. And, again, no one is seeing Biden/Harris flags being waved at burning furniture stores. There is a reason for that.
Frankly, I think at this juncture, Sanders or Warren would be twisting themselves into knots trying not to offend a key constituency on the left, and Democrats would be saying "oh my god, we should have went with Biden." Nothing in the numbers (especially the comprehensive ABC/Ipsos poll today) suggests the voters Biden needs to win blame him for what is happening. I doubt the same could be said if Bernie was the nominee right now. Just being real.
Alot of this feels like the Trump campaign was convinced they were going to be running against Sanders, it didn't happen, and instead of writing a new playbook for a new opponent, they just took Bernie's name out and substituted Biden's. It remains to be seen if that will work, but so far, I think we can say that Biden is MORE immune to this kind of strategy than Sanders would have been, though not necessarily totally immune. It's easy to make this case against the socialist from Vermont. I'm not as sure it works with the guy who helped write the 1994 Crime Bill.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
This argument seems disingenuous.
Citing the Jacobin and an interview done by NPR (so not NPR's views - and furthermore, the Code Switch looks like it's almost like a blog within npr), and then judging the media writ large. I know you're on a neverending crusade to accuse the media of being horrible, but this doesnt help your argument. It's also a bit hard to take seriously when you apparently decry sources like The Jacobin right after sourcing news in tweets posted by Andy Ngo. Your argument looks ideological, not principled.
I might as well go post an article from The Daily Stormer and pretend it represents journalism as well.
Once again, an outlet like Jacobin has about as much use for Joe Biden as they do for pimples on their ass. Nominating Joe Biden was a complete rejection of that wing of the party. Half their articles currently up as I type this are articles attacking centrist Democrats like Biden/Harris. There is an argument to be made here, but it's not one against the current nominee. Most people who a.) read Jacobin and b.) espouse the views you are mentioning, if they are voting for Biden at all, are only doing with EXTREME reluctance, or they simply outright aren't going to do so. They'll be trying to primary him.
As for NPR, it is, specifically, saying this is "one authors view of rioting". I don't see how this is in ANY way different than the New York Times (the supposedly liberal NYT) giving Tom Cotton (a sitting US Senator, not some kook academic) an entire op-ed to argue that protesters should be given "no quarter", which is a military term for "executed on the spot".
There are only two people running for President. Trump is quite obviously stoking these fires and you can practically see him and anyone in his Administration drooling when they talk about street violence. Joe Biden is pretty much universally hated on what I guess we'll call the "pro-riot" left. Only one candidate on that ballot in 65 days has ANY interest in seeing things calm down. Trump would love to see Portland happening in 15-20 cities across the country, and I think we all know that is the case.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
This argument seems disingenuous.
Citing the Jacobin and an interview done by NPR (so not NPR's views - and furthermore, the Code Switch looks like it's almost like a blog within npr), and then judging the media writ large. I know you're on a neverending crusade to accuse the media of being horrible, but this doesnt help your argument. It's also a bit hard to take seriously when you apparently decry sources like The Jacobin right after sourcing news in tweets posted by Andy Ngo. Your argument looks ideological, not principled.
I might as well go post an article from The Daily Stormer and pretend it represents journalism as well.
The idea that mainstream media outlets like NPR are content neutral and publish things even that they themselves strongly disagree with is so obviously untrue on its face I barely need say anything else.
Go ahead and look at their author interview section right now. Tell me what political content doesn't fit the standard liberal view of the world. You would have to try very hard , because it all does. Prison reform, "racial justice", gun laws, why Trump and FOX are evil, black power, why right wing media is bad, Trump is still guilty of colluding with Russia. Everything fits neatly into NPR's vision of the world. Glorifying looting and rioting because "white people bad" is part of that, like it or not.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
This argument seems disingenuous.
Citing the Jacobin and an interview done by NPR (so not NPR's views - and furthermore, the Code Switch looks like it's almost like a blog within npr), and then judging the media writ large. I know you're on a neverending crusade to accuse the media of being horrible, but this doesnt help your argument. It's also a bit hard to take seriously when you apparently decry sources like The Jacobin right after sourcing news in tweets posted by Andy Ngo. Your argument looks ideological, not principled.
I might as well go post an article from The Daily Stormer and pretend it represents journalism as well.
The idea that mainstream media outlets like NPR are content neutral and publish things even that they themselves strongly disagree with is so obviously untrue on its face I barely need say anything else.
Go ahead and look at their author interview section right now. Tell me what political content doesn't fit the standard liberal view of the world. You would have to try very hard , because it all does. Prison reform, "racial justice", gun laws, why Trump and FOX are evil, black power, why right wing media is bad, Trump is still guilty of colluding with Russia. Everything fits neatly into NPR's vision of the world. Glorifying looting and rioting because "white people bad" is part of that, like it or not.
You seem to want to intently focus on street violence. But it's important to reiterate the facts. One candidate has condemned street violence unequivocally. Even to the chagrin of some more radical people on the left. The other candidate has given a pretty obvious nod and wink that some types of violence are acceptable.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
This argument seems disingenuous.
Citing the Jacobin and an interview done by NPR (so not NPR's views - and furthermore, the Code Switch looks like it's almost like a blog within npr), and then judging the media writ large. I know you're on a neverending crusade to accuse the media of being horrible, but this doesnt help your argument. It's also a bit hard to take seriously when you apparently decry sources like The Jacobin right after sourcing news in tweets posted by Andy Ngo. Your argument looks ideological, not principled.
I might as well go post an article from The Daily Stormer and pretend it represents journalism as well.
The idea that mainstream media outlets like NPR are content neutral and publish things even that they themselves strongly disagree with is so obviously untrue on its face I barely need say anything else.
Go ahead and look at their author interview section right now. Tell me what political content doesn't fit the standard liberal view of the world. You would have to try very hard , because it all does. Prison reform, "racial justice", gun laws, why Trump and FOX are evil, black power, why right wing media is bad, Trump is still guilty of colluding with Russia. Everything fits neatly into NPR's vision of the world. Glorifying looting and rioting because "white people bad" is part of that, like it or not.
That's fine, I didnt really say any of that. I dont recall defending npr as being totally unbiased, only that cherry picking a single interview isnt a good way to showcase bias in an organization. In fact, I'd say it does a better job of showcasing bias in the individual making the argument.
You dont seem to be able to help but make your argument ideological, inserting race-baiting asides like "white people bad" fitting npr's "vision of the world" when you know you wont be able to defend that argument in any broad sense.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
So without reading it, this is actually a very important opinion piece. It answers the question “why are people rioting and what do they think they will be able to get out of it?”
The only type of person who would be able to provide that answer is a person who agrees with the rioters.
It’s an opinion piece. The good thing about opinion pieces is that you personally don’t have agree with it. In fact, it’s better that a person doesn’t agree with it since it starts a conversation on why people might not share that view. It also gives you a perspective on why someone thinks differently and if their is any factual errors in the opinion, the author, and those that agree with them, can be corrected on their ignorance about those errors.
So instead of just condemning a person or organization for sharing opinion, counter it with why it’s wrong and it isn’t wrong just because a group of people don’t agree with it and feel like their voices aren’t heard even though they have their own mainstream outlets like Fox News and the Washington Post or any Sinclair station.
Left wing media, both mainstream and radical, encourage riots and looting in urban areas to strike at the heart of "white supremacy". In a few months this will be memory-holed, of course, and replaced with something-something both sides.
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
This argument seems disingenuous.
Citing the Jacobin and an interview done by NPR (so not NPR's views - and furthermore, the Code Switch looks like it's almost like a blog within npr), and then judging the media writ large. I know you're on a neverending crusade to accuse the media of being horrible, but this doesnt help your argument. It's also a bit hard to take seriously when you apparently decry sources like The Jacobin right after sourcing news in tweets posted by Andy Ngo. Your argument looks ideological, not principled.
I might as well go post an article from The Daily Stormer and pretend it represents journalism as well.
The idea that mainstream media outlets like NPR are content neutral and publish things even that they themselves strongly disagree with is so obviously untrue on its face I barely need say anything else.
Why do you want 'content neutral'? You want lies?
Reality is not neutral.
Science says climate change is reality, no questions. Republicans say it's not real or no big deal or otherwise lie because it suits their agenda. They are lying. What should 'the media' do?
Do you know the role of the media? It's to get in between the powerful and us. Even the word media is related to the word middle. Most of us don't have time or access to research the issues of the day and the latest developments. We've got jobs and responsibilities and lives. The media is there to report on and interpret if needed the world around us and the actions of the powerful.
The first amendment freedom of the press is there for a reason. Think about it.
When I was a kid, I used to think racism was mostly over. I thought that the U.S. had passed the right laws and amendments, that racist ideas were being treated with the scorn they deserved, that racists were learning to keep quiet and avoiding spreading hatred, and that most of the work remaining was to clean up and shovel more dirt over racism's putrid corpse. I thought we were dealing with a rotting corpse; not a living movement.
As I got older and got exposed to more of the greater world, I became less and less convinced that racism was mostly dead.
Personally, the strongest arguments against that notion don't show up in headlines. Black families have a fraction of the wealth as white families on a per capita basis; that's just a fact. Black folks and people of color are less likely to be hired than white people even when they have the same resumes; that's borne out by research. People of color are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes than white folks, even for the same alleged crimes. That's just statistics--widely known data that no one seriously disputes, because you can't really argue with objective facts. It's hard to say "those data are all just pure coincidence; all of those differences just happen to be caused by other factors, besides race."
But honestly, what really drove the point home for me was seeing the more extreme examples, because I already knew, from God knows how many data points, that they weren't isolated instances. It's not like police officers murdering unarmed black people in cold blood, even literal children, is the only example of racism in this country. It's just one expression of it.
And the discussion around the subject only reinforces that.
That's what really sickens me. It's not "X number of unarmed black people are gunned down by police officers every year, that we know of."
It's "racism is so intense in this country that it goes all the way up to literally murdering black folks in their own homes."
It's "racism is so pervasive and so gleefully tolerated that people who murder black folks are allowed to go free, the murder unpunished."
It's "racism is so celebrated in this country that people who murder black folks are hailed as heroes on national television."
It's "racism is so strong in this country that the mere phrase 'Black Lives Matter' is controversial."
It's "racism is so common that you can read people arguing for hours across the Internet whether an unarmed black person committing no crime deserved to die or not, and still never find a consensus."
I used to take it as a point of national pride that the United States had come as far as it had on racial justice.
It used to be a point of national pride for me that my country was moving past racism, and every month I learn just how many Americans take absolutely no pride in fighting racial injustice in this country. Every month I see folks who I thought had the same basic sense of decency as I did, defending literal murder in example after example after example.
You can't criticize the murder of black people without folks accusing you of supporting the murder of white people or police officers, because as bald-faced as racism can be in this country, no one has the courage to admit that they don't actually mind that Trayvon Martin is dead. Another innocent black person gets gunned down and the murderer's defenders rush to tell us that the real danger comes from the people who oppose violence.
And in the most supreme display of contempt for the lives of our fellow Americans, they act like they would have supported Black Lives Matter if people had just been a little more polite about opposing murder, a little quieter when speaking out against violence, a little more respectful of white people's feelings when they cry over the body of their dead son.
You can't mourn an innocent person's death without people telling you that your sorrow is too offensive to the murderer's ears.
The reality is that these folks don't care how you oppose the murder of black folks. The fact that you oppose the murder of black folks is what bothers them. That's why kneeling quietly during the national anthem in protest of police violence was treated with the same amount of fear and contempt and anger as a building being set on fire.
Because the problem isn't how you protest; the problem is what you protest. And not everyone agrees that black people's lives do matter.
That's the only reason Black Lives Matter is controversial. Everything else is just noise.
Folks who truly do think human lives matter don't hesitate to defend them. They don't make excuses, they don't make exceptions, and they don't let optics and rhetoric and phrasing and silly partisan politics change their fundamental values.
If we could genuinely agree that black folks didn't deserve to be shot, this entire national debate and all the protests and all of the arguments and controversy would not exist.
One thing I do not understand about the US situation is, should it not be "every life matters" or something? There would be many more minorities not limited by colour that get the short end of the stick. Should it not be general equality that is to be endeavoured in a society or is that too much?
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
One thing I do not understand about the US situation is, should it not be "every life matters" or something? There would be many more minorities not limited by colour that get the short end of the stick. Should it not be general equality that is to be endeavoured in a society or is that too much?
Black lives matter doesn't mean every life doesn't matter.
One in 1,000 black men in America can expect to be killed by police over the course of a lifetime. Black people are regularly beaten, killed, and incarcerated at very high rates in America. Black lives matter means, to me, that we should be working on treating black people as human beings.
Steven A. Smith, a retired millionaire NBA, describes the issue extremely well in this short video (which I apparently don't know how to link anymore )
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
“But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.”- Joe Biden, June 12, 2020.
By my estimation, that is (checks calendar) 2 1/2 months ago. Just because the media didn't REPORT it, doesn't mean it wasn't said. Now we are at the point where unequivocal statements from Biden are subject to a goalpost that is running from stadium to stadium, and Trump gets a full pass for outright DISMISSING shooting random people with paintball guns and spraying them with mace. We don't just have a double-standard here, we have someone who is being forced to play the game and someone else who can just say whatever he wants and get away with it. Biden has explicitly condemned not only the other side, but HIS (and I should honestly place that in quotation marks) as well, and Trump is giving full-on approval for his side to continue. I mean, I give up at this point.
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
Biden has made unequivocal condemnations of violence and looting several times already. From June 2:
"But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families. Nor is it acceptable for our police — sworn to protect and serve all people — to escalate tensions or resort to excessive violence. We need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest — and opportunistic violent destruction."
This is just one of several public remarks he's made on the subject. Folks who are just hearing about this for the first time might want to reevaluate their own news consumption.
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
Biden has made unequivocal condemnations of violence and looting several times already. From June 2:
"But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families. Nor is it acceptable for our police — sworn to protect and serve all people — to escalate tensions or resort to excessive violence. We need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest — and opportunistic violent destruction."
This is just one of several public remarks he's made on the subject. Folks who are just hearing about this for the first time might want to reevaluate their own news consumption.
And also understand that the things Trump says are going to get 100x more coverage in most situations because the media is obsessed with his train-wreck appeal, and also, because HE is the goddamn President right now.
What, exactly, can Joe Biden do about what is happening?? At this moment, he is nothing but a citizen of Delaware as far as ACTUAL power goes. Yeah, he can give speeches. Apparently he's just supposed to be doing this on a daily basis until the crowds in Kenosha or Portland listen to him if he talks loud and long enough?? Meanwhile, Trump has the biggest megaphone in the world, and the ONLY thing he has done is send secret police into Portland which made the situation 10x worse. Not a single call for calm the entire summer, just all caps tweets about "law and order" and "strength". The bully pulpit is real. Trump has it. And he has used it to purposefully fan the flames.
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
Biden has made unequivocal condemnations of violence and looting several times already. From June 2:
"But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families. Nor is it acceptable for our police — sworn to protect and serve all people — to escalate tensions or resort to excessive violence. We need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest — and opportunistic violent destruction."
This is just one of several public remarks he's made on the subject. Folks who are just hearing about this for the first time might want to reevaluate their own news consumption.
What's with the hostilities. This is the first time he has come out and denounced rioting and looting without a but in his comments. There is a lot of news out there and we all know most cater to their base of viewers. Assuming people don't understand the news or don't watch the right news is a little third reich.
I just found a black man was murdered by police in my area just 4 days ago.
It was at his own home. It was supposed to be a mental health check because he was suicidal, but it seems the officers decided to grab him midway through the discussion and shot him to death within 2 minutes of putting their hands on him. The victim had a gun on his person but had no criminal history and no crime was reported; there was no reason to try to arrest him in the first place.
The police just said he "challenged" them.
The officers have been placed on administrative leave. They released two or three photos from the body camera footage but haven't released the actual video in full. No points for guessing why.
It's worth pointing out during all of this that Republicans and those on the right have been circulating no less than THREE obviously doctored videos in the last 24-hours, including one that used the voice modulator of a man with a terminal illness to alter the context of a conversation he was having with Biden to make it look like he said something else. That's what Steve Scalise, who was the one pushing it, has done with his second chance at life. Going around using the disability of someone with ALS to push a doctored video tape.
Besides that, we've also seen a video of a news reporter telling someone they are interviewing to "wake-up" with Biden on the other side to make it seem like he was sleeping through an interview. Except it wasn't an actual interview with Biden. It was an interview with Harry Belefonte, who they took out and INSERTED Biden into. The excuse now being, of course, that it was "satire", even though it wasn't until they got caught. The "I was joking card" that I have railed against for 4 years remains are prevalent an excuse as ever.
One thing I do not understand about the US situation is, should it not be "every life matters" or something? There would be many more minorities not limited by colour that get the short end of the stick. Should it not be general equality that is to be endeavored in a society or is that too much?
As @smeagolheart said, there's an implicit "too" at the end of "Black Lives Matter". The reason why it's left specific to Black Lives is that the movement was fundamentally started due to police brutality that disproportionately targeted Black communities and Black people.
Due to intersectionality, a lot of BLM activities also speak out about other forms of injustice. At a march I went to earlier in the summer, one of the speakers at the end talked about Palestinians oppression.
A comic I saw that sort of gets at why it's "Black" and not "All"
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
“But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.”- Joe Biden, June 12, 2020.
By my estimation, that is (checks calendar) 2 1/2 months ago. Just because the media didn't REPORT it, doesn't mean it wasn't said. Now we are at the point where unequivocal statements from Biden are subject to a goalpost that is running from stadium to stadium, and Trump gets a full pass for outright DISMISSING shooting random people with paintball guns and spraying them with mace. We don't just have a double-standard here, we have someone who is being forced to play the game and someone else who can just say whatever he wants and get away with it. Biden has explicitly condemned not only the other side, but HIS (and I should honestly place that in quotation marks) as well, and Trump is giving full-on approval for his side to continue. I mean, I give up at this point.
There was a but in his comment. I got mad when he said it then but applaud him now. This time he didn't pull a Trump and put in a but there were good people on both sides. If Trump is to lose this november we must be assertive and not dance around not offending some even if they are on our side.
Can a mod please message me as to why some of my comments are being placed as needing approval. Is this a feature of the forums or maybe it's a setting I have on.
My opinion Joe should said that a while ago, also throwing bottles full of piss should be a biological warfare offence. trying to be an ally and getting splashed by some idiots piss is not cool. Lot of diseases around not just covid.
“But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.”- Joe Biden, June 12, 2020.
By my estimation, that is (checks calendar) 2 1/2 months ago. Just because the media didn't REPORT it, doesn't mean it wasn't said. Now we are at the point where unequivocal statements from Biden are subject to a goalpost that is running from stadium to stadium, and Trump gets a full pass for outright DISMISSING shooting random people with paintball guns and spraying them with mace. We don't just have a double-standard here, we have someone who is being forced to play the game and someone else who can just say whatever he wants and get away with it. Biden has explicitly condemned not only the other side, but HIS (and I should honestly place that in quotation marks) as well, and Trump is giving full-on approval for his side to continue. I mean, I give up at this point.
There was a but in his comment. I got mad when he said it then but applaud him now. This time he didn't pull a Trump and put in a but there were good people on both sides. If Trump is to lose this november we must be assertive and not dance around not offending some even if they are on our side.
There have been peaceful protests though. They just don't make as much news as ones where looting, rioting, clashes with police occur. Again, I really really stress that people not rely on social media or partisan or sensational outlets for their information.
It's very very important for Biden to say "but we should recognize peaceful protests", imo.
The but I was talking about was his comment about police. We know of the systemic racism in the forces but it should not be used as a Joane did something bad but Jane is to blame also. That shows indecisiveness and a fear of pissing some people off. It's time to piss people off. Biden has to show Alpha male attitude people do not vote for the seemingly weaker candidate. He has to show that he is not sleepy joe or uncle joe he has to be President Joe Biden-Joe. Not arguing just hope I got my view across here.
I just found a black man was murdered by police in my area just 4 days ago.
It was at his own home. It was supposed to be a mental health check because he was suicidal, but it seems the officers decided to grab him midway through the discussion and shot him to death within 2 minutes of putting their hands on him. The victim had a gun on his person but had no criminal history and no crime was reported; there was no reason to try to arrest him in the first place.
The police just said he "challenged" them.
The officers have been placed on administrative leave. They released two or three photos from the body camera footage but haven't released the actual video in full. No points for guessing why.
People who call police for welfare checks on those who have mental illness or distress are actively putting their lives at risk at this point. Cops expect total compliance and view anything less as a threat to their lives, and many of these people simply AREN'T CAPABLE of following those orders.
The but I was talking about was his comment about police. We know of the systemic racism in the forces but it should not be used as a Joane did something bad but Jane is to blame also. That shows indecisiveness and a fear of pissing some people off. It's time to piss people off. Biden has to show Alpha male attitude people do not vote for the seemingly weaker candidate. He has to show that he is not sleepy joe or uncle joe he has to be President Joe Biden-Joe. Not arguing just hope I got my view across here.
I just don't agree. I don't think it's responsible as a politician to make a speech only about the looting or the riots. Look, the looting and the riots are exceptional, won't last, and as Biden said, are counter-productive to getting real change on the issue. Moreover the issue of looting and riots doesn't require anything new to be done by the government. People guilty of crimes need to be investigated and prosecuted. Yes, we're not going to catch every guilty individual, but that's how the justice system works.
But the issue of police brutality is a *big* issue. And it's an issue that requires a serious commitment by the government to reform. I don't think Biden needs to be Alpha anything. He needs to be a compassionate politician who wants to make the country a more just place for all of its citizens.
Comments
Completely agree, and sadly it has to do with revenue dollars.
The stories being written and shared by news organizations need to attract as many eyes as possible for better ad revenue. You get that by sensualizing the headline and reporting on what more people will actually click on.
It is no longer about delivering news to inform the public, but about delivering news that the public wants to hear.
There is no downside to attacking the left-wing agitators. Biden's path to victory is not Bernie or Bust Marxists. It's senior citizens and suburban women, who are both inclined to vote for him. In every video I've ever seen of this shit, black protesters end up pleading with young, white morons to please stop breaking windows and setting things on fire, because (to paraphrase) THEY may be doing it, but the African-Americans on the street will be the ones who feel the wrath of law enforcement when the whip comes down. And, again, no one is seeing Biden/Harris flags being waved at burning furniture stores. There is a reason for that.
Frankly, I think at this juncture, Sanders or Warren would be twisting themselves into knots trying not to offend a key constituency on the left, and Democrats would be saying "oh my god, we should have went with Biden." Nothing in the numbers (especially the comprehensive ABC/Ipsos poll today) suggests the voters Biden needs to win blame him for what is happening. I doubt the same could be said if Bernie was the nominee right now. Just being real.
Alot of this feels like the Trump campaign was convinced they were going to be running against Sanders, it didn't happen, and instead of writing a new playbook for a new opponent, they just took Bernie's name out and substituted Biden's. It remains to be seen if that will work, but so far, I think we can say that Biden is MORE immune to this kind of strategy than Sanders would have been, though not necessarily totally immune. It's easy to make this case against the socialist from Vermont. I'm not as sure it works with the guy who helped write the 1994 Crime Bill.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting?preview=
The mind games the media plays are pretty shameless once you see them from outside the bubble. They simultaneously encourage riots and looting while they tell you it isn't really happening (it is) and if it is it's on a small scale (it's not) and then they won't report the actual consequences, lots of deaths, of the looting and rioting they encouraged.
This argument seems disingenuous.
Citing the Jacobin and an interview done by NPR (so not NPR's views - and furthermore, the Code Switch looks like it's almost like a blog within npr), and then judging the media writ large. I know you're on a neverending crusade to accuse the media of being horrible, but this doesnt help your argument. It's also a bit hard to take seriously when you apparently decry sources like The Jacobin right after sourcing news in tweets posted by Andy Ngo. Your argument looks ideological, not principled.
I might as well go post an article from The Daily Stormer and pretend it represents journalism as well.
As for NPR, it is, specifically, saying this is "one authors view of rioting". I don't see how this is in ANY way different than the New York Times (the supposedly liberal NYT) giving Tom Cotton (a sitting US Senator, not some kook academic) an entire op-ed to argue that protesters should be given "no quarter", which is a military term for "executed on the spot".
There are only two people running for President. Trump is quite obviously stoking these fires and you can practically see him and anyone in his Administration drooling when they talk about street violence. Joe Biden is pretty much universally hated on what I guess we'll call the "pro-riot" left. Only one candidate on that ballot in 65 days has ANY interest in seeing things calm down. Trump would love to see Portland happening in 15-20 cities across the country, and I think we all know that is the case.
The idea that mainstream media outlets like NPR are content neutral and publish things even that they themselves strongly disagree with is so obviously untrue on its face I barely need say anything else.
Go ahead and look at their author interview section right now. Tell me what political content doesn't fit the standard liberal view of the world. You would have to try very hard , because it all does. Prison reform, "racial justice", gun laws, why Trump and FOX are evil, black power, why right wing media is bad, Trump is still guilty of colluding with Russia. Everything fits neatly into NPR's vision of the world. Glorifying looting and rioting because "white people bad" is part of that, like it or not.
https://www.npr.org/sections/author-interviews/
You seem to want to intently focus on street violence. But it's important to reiterate the facts. One candidate has condemned street violence unequivocally. Even to the chagrin of some more radical people on the left. The other candidate has given a pretty obvious nod and wink that some types of violence are acceptable.
That's fine, I didnt really say any of that. I dont recall defending npr as being totally unbiased, only that cherry picking a single interview isnt a good way to showcase bias in an organization. In fact, I'd say it does a better job of showcasing bias in the individual making the argument.
You dont seem to be able to help but make your argument ideological, inserting race-baiting asides like "white people bad" fitting npr's "vision of the world" when you know you wont be able to defend that argument in any broad sense.
So without reading it, this is actually a very important opinion piece. It answers the question “why are people rioting and what do they think they will be able to get out of it?”
The only type of person who would be able to provide that answer is a person who agrees with the rioters.
It’s an opinion piece. The good thing about opinion pieces is that you personally don’t have agree with it. In fact, it’s better that a person doesn’t agree with it since it starts a conversation on why people might not share that view. It also gives you a perspective on why someone thinks differently and if their is any factual errors in the opinion, the author, and those that agree with them, can be corrected on their ignorance about those errors.
So instead of just condemning a person or organization for sharing opinion, counter it with why it’s wrong and it isn’t wrong just because a group of people don’t agree with it and feel like their voices aren’t heard even though they have their own mainstream outlets like Fox News and the Washington Post or any Sinclair station.
Why do you want 'content neutral'? You want lies?
Reality is not neutral.
Science says climate change is reality, no questions. Republicans say it's not real or no big deal or otherwise lie because it suits their agenda. They are lying. What should 'the media' do?
Do you know the role of the media? It's to get in between the powerful and us. Even the word media is related to the word middle. Most of us don't have time or access to research the issues of the day and the latest developments. We've got jobs and responsibilities and lives. The media is there to report on and interpret if needed the world around us and the actions of the powerful.
The first amendment freedom of the press is there for a reason. Think about it.
As I got older and got exposed to more of the greater world, I became less and less convinced that racism was mostly dead.
Personally, the strongest arguments against that notion don't show up in headlines. Black families have a fraction of the wealth as white families on a per capita basis; that's just a fact. Black folks and people of color are less likely to be hired than white people even when they have the same resumes; that's borne out by research. People of color are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes than white folks, even for the same alleged crimes. That's just statistics--widely known data that no one seriously disputes, because you can't really argue with objective facts. It's hard to say "those data are all just pure coincidence; all of those differences just happen to be caused by other factors, besides race."
But honestly, what really drove the point home for me was seeing the more extreme examples, because I already knew, from God knows how many data points, that they weren't isolated instances. It's not like police officers murdering unarmed black people in cold blood, even literal children, is the only example of racism in this country. It's just one expression of it.
And the discussion around the subject only reinforces that.
That's what really sickens me. It's not "X number of unarmed black people are gunned down by police officers every year, that we know of."
It's "racism is so intense in this country that it goes all the way up to literally murdering black folks in their own homes."
It's "racism is so pervasive and so gleefully tolerated that people who murder black folks are allowed to go free, the murder unpunished."
It's "racism is so celebrated in this country that people who murder black folks are hailed as heroes on national television."
It's "racism is so strong in this country that the mere phrase 'Black Lives Matter' is controversial."
It's "racism is so common that you can read people arguing for hours across the Internet whether an unarmed black person committing no crime deserved to die or not, and still never find a consensus."
I used to take it as a point of national pride that the United States had come as far as it had on racial justice.
It used to be a point of national pride for me that my country was moving past racism, and every month I learn just how many Americans take absolutely no pride in fighting racial injustice in this country. Every month I see folks who I thought had the same basic sense of decency as I did, defending literal murder in example after example after example.
You can't criticize the murder of black people without folks accusing you of supporting the murder of white people or police officers, because as bald-faced as racism can be in this country, no one has the courage to admit that they don't actually mind that Trayvon Martin is dead. Another innocent black person gets gunned down and the murderer's defenders rush to tell us that the real danger comes from the people who oppose violence.
And in the most supreme display of contempt for the lives of our fellow Americans, they act like they would have supported Black Lives Matter if people had just been a little more polite about opposing murder, a little quieter when speaking out against violence, a little more respectful of white people's feelings when they cry over the body of their dead son.
You can't mourn an innocent person's death without people telling you that your sorrow is too offensive to the murderer's ears.
The reality is that these folks don't care how you oppose the murder of black folks. The fact that you oppose the murder of black folks is what bothers them. That's why kneeling quietly during the national anthem in protest of police violence was treated with the same amount of fear and contempt and anger as a building being set on fire.
Because the problem isn't how you protest; the problem is what you protest. And not everyone agrees that black people's lives do matter.
That's the only reason Black Lives Matter is controversial. Everything else is just noise.
Folks who truly do think human lives matter don't hesitate to defend them. They don't make excuses, they don't make exceptions, and they don't let optics and rhetoric and phrasing and silly partisan politics change their fundamental values.
If we could genuinely agree that black folks didn't deserve to be shot, this entire national debate and all the protests and all of the arguments and controversy would not exist.
That's what all of this really boils down to.
Black Lives Matter.
I'm tired of being a bystander when I could be an ally.
Wear a mask.
Social Distance.
Stay outside.
Bring your own food and water to limit contact with others.
Meanwhile, here is Biden a few hours before. I rest my case:
Black lives matter doesn't mean every life doesn't matter.
One in 1,000 black men in America can expect to be killed by police over the course of a lifetime. Black people are regularly beaten, killed, and incarcerated at very high rates in America. Black lives matter means, to me, that we should be working on treating black people as human beings.
Steven A. Smith, a retired millionaire NBA, describes the issue extremely well in this short video (which I apparently don't know how to link anymore )
"Here's What I Want White America To Understand"
“But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.”- Joe Biden, June 12, 2020.
By my estimation, that is (checks calendar) 2 1/2 months ago. Just because the media didn't REPORT it, doesn't mean it wasn't said. Now we are at the point where unequivocal statements from Biden are subject to a goalpost that is running from stadium to stadium, and Trump gets a full pass for outright DISMISSING shooting random people with paintball guns and spraying them with mace. We don't just have a double-standard here, we have someone who is being forced to play the game and someone else who can just say whatever he wants and get away with it. Biden has explicitly condemned not only the other side, but HIS (and I should honestly place that in quotation marks) as well, and Trump is giving full-on approval for his side to continue. I mean, I give up at this point.
Biden has made unequivocal condemnations of violence and looting several times already. From June 2:
"But there is no place for violence. No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families. Nor is it acceptable for our police — sworn to protect and serve all people — to escalate tensions or resort to excessive violence. We need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest — and opportunistic violent destruction."
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/02/politics/biden-philadelphia-transcript/index.html
This is just one of several public remarks he's made on the subject. Folks who are just hearing about this for the first time might want to reevaluate their own news consumption.
And also understand that the things Trump says are going to get 100x more coverage in most situations because the media is obsessed with his train-wreck appeal, and also, because HE is the goddamn President right now.
What, exactly, can Joe Biden do about what is happening?? At this moment, he is nothing but a citizen of Delaware as far as ACTUAL power goes. Yeah, he can give speeches. Apparently he's just supposed to be doing this on a daily basis until the crowds in Kenosha or Portland listen to him if he talks loud and long enough?? Meanwhile, Trump has the biggest megaphone in the world, and the ONLY thing he has done is send secret police into Portland which made the situation 10x worse. Not a single call for calm the entire summer, just all caps tweets about "law and order" and "strength". The bully pulpit is real. Trump has it. And he has used it to purposefully fan the flames.
What's with the hostilities. This is the first time he has come out and denounced rioting and looting without a but in his comments. There is a lot of news out there and we all know most cater to their base of viewers. Assuming people don't understand the news or don't watch the right news is a little third reich.
It was at his own home. It was supposed to be a mental health check because he was suicidal, but it seems the officers decided to grab him midway through the discussion and shot him to death within 2 minutes of putting their hands on him. The victim had a gun on his person but had no criminal history and no crime was reported; there was no reason to try to arrest him in the first place.
The police just said he "challenged" them.
The officers have been placed on administrative leave. They released two or three photos from the body camera footage but haven't released the actual video in full. No points for guessing why.
Besides that, we've also seen a video of a news reporter telling someone they are interviewing to "wake-up" with Biden on the other side to make it seem like he was sleeping through an interview. Except it wasn't an actual interview with Biden. It was an interview with Harry Belefonte, who they took out and INSERTED Biden into. The excuse now being, of course, that it was "satire", even though it wasn't until they got caught. The "I was joking card" that I have railed against for 4 years remains are prevalent an excuse as ever.
As @smeagolheart said, there's an implicit "too" at the end of "Black Lives Matter". The reason why it's left specific to Black Lives is that the movement was fundamentally started due to police brutality that disproportionately targeted Black communities and Black people.
Due to intersectionality, a lot of BLM activities also speak out about other forms of injustice. At a march I went to earlier in the summer, one of the speakers at the end talked about Palestinians oppression.
A comic I saw that sort of gets at why it's "Black" and not "All"
There was a but in his comment. I got mad when he said it then but applaud him now. This time he didn't pull a Trump and put in a but there were good people on both sides. If Trump is to lose this november we must be assertive and not dance around not offending some even if they are on our side.
There have been peaceful protests though. They just don't make as much news as ones where looting, rioting, clashes with police occur. Again, I really really stress that people not rely on social media or partisan or sensational outlets for their information.
It's very very important for Biden to say "but we should recognize peaceful protests", imo.
People who call police for welfare checks on those who have mental illness or distress are actively putting their lives at risk at this point. Cops expect total compliance and view anything less as a threat to their lives, and many of these people simply AREN'T CAPABLE of following those orders.
I just don't agree. I don't think it's responsible as a politician to make a speech only about the looting or the riots. Look, the looting and the riots are exceptional, won't last, and as Biden said, are counter-productive to getting real change on the issue. Moreover the issue of looting and riots doesn't require anything new to be done by the government. People guilty of crimes need to be investigated and prosecuted. Yes, we're not going to catch every guilty individual, but that's how the justice system works.
But the issue of police brutality is a *big* issue. And it's an issue that requires a serious commitment by the government to reform. I don't think Biden needs to be Alpha anything. He needs to be a compassionate politician who wants to make the country a more just place for all of its citizens.