kimmy

You're telling me that setting fire to hobos was apparently a fairly common occurrence. You can see why this additional information makes me more cynical regarding the media types who jumped on "hate crime" as a motive in the Vancouver incident, right? -k

A book by Anthony Walsh A book by Jim Kuypers I have no idea how legit Anthony Walsh is, but Jim Kuypers is a Virginia Tech professor of communication studies and has written books on a variety of media topics, he seems pretty credible. It certainly was difficult to find, however, which I think illustrates the point. -k

odd. I assume this is what you were responding to: Fair enough. The race of the attacker would be mentioned by way of helping apprehend an at-large criminal. However, while mentioning the race of the attacker is relevant in bringing him to justice, the coverage of this incident went further. They mention the race of the victim as well, and further, they speculate that it may have been a hate crime based on no other information than the race of the attacker and the victim. Certainly not. However... was this done as sick pranks? Or was it a Hate Crime? I think we kind of need to know the ethnic background of these hobos that were set on fire. -k

You've put your response inside my quote. Can you clean up this message so I can tell what you're replying to? -k

Only in certain situations. They know they'll be cast as villains if they don't handle stories with a racial aspect with utmost care. I pointed out that the article mentioned their affiliation with the Alberta Warriors, and pointed out that someone in-the-know would recognize that as an aboriginal gang. The article states that only one of the 6 accused, Keewatin, was in police custody. Warrants had been issued for the remaining 5, who remained at large. I've already agreed that when suspects are at large, the media is willing to provide that information. I provided that article as an example of how the media seeks to tip-toe around race in cases of violence by non-white assailants. Now contrast that with the coverage of the "Vancouver man set on fire" story where reporters were breathlessly pursuing a white racist hate crime aspect to the story. -k

Yes, that is exactly the case. This was all covered earlier. You can go back and read the provided link from the Buffaloooo newspaper if you wish. Sure, there are lots of circumstances that play into how much coverage an incident receives. As I mentioned in my previous post to Michael: "Multiple attackers. Multiple incidents. Unusual circumstances. Lurid details. A video of the incident. All of these ones are obvious. I submit that a potential "hate crime" aspect to the case is something that catches an editor's eye as well." I think you're mistaken, but that's a subject for a different thread. Obviously, I can't *prove* that the incident in Buffalo would have been a much bigger news story if the victim and attackers' races had been reversed. But I think it's a very good assumption based on how other stories of hate attacks on minorities had been played up. I mentioned the Toronto school rape case where parents' accusations of racist prosecution propelled the story onto the headlines, and I mentioned the followup articles that covered the convictions but completely dropped mention of the racial controversy even though it had been a notable aspect of the case. I watched the Global News TV report on this incident: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/11/bc-man-set-on-fire-east-vancouver.html Where the reporter, armed with no information other than the fact that witnesses had the attacker being white and the victim being Asian, speculated that this was a hate crime. The media continued to pursue the angle: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/10/12/vancouver-police-probe-possible-racial-motive-after-man-set-on-fire.aspx ...managing to get an "it's possible" from the police spokesman. Now, somebody getting set on fire is probably going to get in the news (under the "lurid details" rule.) But if the attacker wasn't white and the victim wasn't non-white, the race aspect of this story is not going to be mentioned *at* *all* and you're certainly not going to have reporters pursuing a hate-crime angle. -k

Most aren't, at least in a city of any significant size. Most assaults and attacks merit a brief mention in a police blotter column in the local news section of the paper. Only incidents that catch the editor's eye get any more coverage than that. What catches an editor's eye? Multiple attackers. Multiple incidents. Unusual circumstances. Lurid details. A video of the incident. All of these ones are obvious. I submit that a potential "hate crime" aspect to the case is something that catches an editor's eye as well. -k

I think that in the inverse situation, the editors are worried that viewers *would* feel righteous indignation... and are afraid of being accused of fanning racial hatred (or "they treat it as a hot-button issue" in newspeak). They cover these stories as if this was still a culture where a lynch mob of angry whites would hit the streets to retaliate. -k

Not that long ago I was watching an American broadcast of a match between a black boxer and a white boxer where the announcer was trying to explain which figher was which by explaining that while both had black trunks, Johnson had some white trim on his trunks. Americans are not as bold in mentioning race as you'd like to present, Dick. -k {on the bright side, at least neither of the boxers was described as a "visible minority".}

I'm baffled: what is so different? With most of the templates back to normal, what is it that Greg's done that's so intolerable? Stay if you wish, go if you must, but don't try and pin it on some inane reason like the search menu is different now or the font is too big. -k

Geraldo Rivera gets the last laugh. ...how often has that ever happened?! -k

It's my claim that the Canadian media downplays or avoids mention of race wherever possible, in situations where the accused or convicted are non-white. Peruse this one for an example of what I'm getting at: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1038995888018_128/ There's no mention at all of race. People might suspect that names like "Redbreast" and "Ironchild" and "Keewatin" are native, and somebody in the know would realize that the Alberta Warriors are an aboriginal gang, but that's all. The policeman offers robbery as the motive, as if such horrific violence were required to get some bank-cards from the captured teens. Now, if 6 white men had captured and tortured a group of native teenagers... tell me if you think the media would be tiptoeing around race as they did in this article. I previously mentioned another example, the 16 black teens who were accused (and ultimately convicted or plead guilty) in the ongoing sexual abuse of a white girl at their high school. We know that the accused were black and the victim was white... but only because the parents of the accused teens went to the media to howl that their children were the victims of racism. The later follow-up article I posted mentions the convictions, but completely neglects to mention the racial aspect of the story, despite the fact that the controversy raised by the angry parents had been the noteworthy aspect that got national attention for the story in the first place. You made it sound as if you think the ratio is a completely rational result of the relative populations. But that doesn't make sense at all. If group A numbers 45 million and members of group A perform activity X 2 million times per year, and members of group B number 225 million and perform activity Y 400,000 times per year, seems apparent that a member of group A is 25 times more likely to do activity X than a member of group B is to do activity Y. ... unless the attackers are white and the victims aren't... or so we're led to believe. I don't have any expectation of "equality" from the media. I have pretty low expectations of the media, and I'm seldom disappointed. The media is what it is. They want to sell newspapers/banner ads/ratings points, and they fear criticism. And if they report certain stories in a certain way, they get a torrent of criticism from "progressives". If they keep doing what they're doing, they get criticism from... just about nobody, except for maybe myself, plus some whack-jobs. They're probably completely fine with that. I think we're mostly agreed (except Morris and Globe) that at least a double standard exists, and I agree that there are probably historical reasons why, and maybe it even made sense at some point. I don't think it makes sense any more, I don't think it can be argued to be beneficial to anybody, and I don't see that the criticism is unfair or undeserved. -k

To this point I've been primarily just trying to argue that this kind of bias even exists. Look at him, he still won't give it up. "oooh, oooh, maybe it was newsworthy because people think small towns are peaceful and harmonious!" I have no wish to claim that "they" are out to "get" "us" or any such thing. I just think the media are spineless cowards and deserve to be called out. I think they report on issues with a racial aspect is doing a disservice to everybody involved, and they deserve to be criticized for it. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. Personally my issue is not with the blurring of the line between "news" and "entertainment". My problem is more with the failure of the "news as information" people to actually present information. I just haven't watched either of them to have an informed opinion about what they report, but I do know that Bill O'Reilly and Nancy Grace are vilified for what they do. If that's what's waiting for reporters and commentators who are willing to dare being politically incorrect, then no wonder nobody's doing it. -k

I think it's exactly analogous. If you wish to disagree, let's hear it. Otherwise, I'll just take "probably" as your agreement that yes, the race of the victim and the attackers played a significant role in the degree of media coverage the incident received. On the contrary, it confirmed a lot of peoples' perceptions of what small towns are like... insular little communities full of xenophobic redneck dirt-bags. There are certainly comments to that effect in the thread on the topic. -k

I am picturing a 500 pixel tall picture of my cat "Shadow", flanked by twin "Support our Troops" ribbons, underscored by a string of animated gifs of waving Canadian and American flags. All finished off with one of these babies: ……… , . - -.- - . , ……. ……… ) ` - . . - `(……. …….. / . . . .`\. . .\ .. …….. …….. |. . . . . |. . .| ……… ……… \ . . . ./ . . / ……….. ……….. `=(./.)=` ……….. …………. `-;`;-’ …………. …………… || … , ……… ……………..|| _.-’| ………. ………..|’-._ || . / ……… ……. . ..\ . || .’ / ………….. ……….. \ . || . /…………. …………. \.|| . /……. ………….. \.||./ ………….. …….. …….\||/…………… …………. …|| ………….. ……………..|| ………….. ……………..|| ………….. ……………..|| ………….. ……………..||……. ……. …………………….. ……… ...a badly formated text rose. One of the all time classics. It is gonna be sweet. True that. However, Benny did provide the setup for one of the funniest things I ever read on this forum. In a topic when people were posting about witch-burnings and accusing each other of straw man arguments, Smallc writes: which caused me to snort hot tea out my nose. -k

Absolutely. Now you're getting it, Junior. If you wish to remove attention from your "seniority" or lack of it, click on your username to go to your profile. Then click "edit my profile". Then go down to the section that says "Profile Information" and put something in the field that says "Member Title". Then instead of "Junior Member" you could be "Frozen Hominid". -k

You don't need to be a Quebec separatist to protest the Royals. However, what a bunch of freakin crybabies. "De royals, dey 'ave exploit us. Le wah." If you want to campaign for separation, go for it... but spare us the maudlin douchebaggery. -k

I used the word "bullied" to illustrate how I could make somebody throw the first punch at me. Whether "bullied" is an accurate description of the terms imposed on Germany after WWI isn't really the question. I think many historians are of the belief that the terms imposed on Germany after WWI made further conflict inevitable. And my point is that if I treat someone in such a way as to make it inevitable that they will want or need to fight me, then I've acted badly. -k

I think it matters. I think the disproportion in coverage paints an inaccurate picture, and gives the idea that minorities are at high risk of violence from white racists. I think that's highly inaccurate, and I can't see anything positive that could come from giving people such an impression. I think it probably creates a climate of fear, resentment, and mistrust. I also think the disproportion in coverage harms the cause of people who'd like to have some kind of dialogue on the issue. How can I seriously have a conversation with people who think the attack on Jay Phillips is the worst thing since the Holocaust, when similar incidents with the races reversed are commonplace and go unreported by the media? If a conversation is so loaded that it causes someone like me to dismiss it out of hand, how are you going to get your case across to the *real* knuckleheads? And it gives the Lictors of the world ammunition, helps them rationalize their paranoia. -k

Well, when that gay feller got beat to death, that got turned into a huge story, and that wasn't even Buffalo, that was Bupkus Wyoming. -k

I don't recall that the media made race an issue during that incident. This article, it seems to me, is typical of how the media tried to tip-toe around the issue of race: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/12/29/newshooting-Toronto051229.html Mentions gang rivalry as possible motive for the violence, but unless "gang" is taken to be a euphemism for "black", that's as close as it gets. Now, there *was* some heated discussion of whether Toronto had a "gang problem" after a series of incidents that included Jane Creba's death as well as a rash of other shootings. And that unavoidably meant a discussion of Toronto's black community, which was driven by black community activists and not by media types. (Shouldn't that be counterbalanced by the fact that there are just 1/5 as many potential black attackers?) It seems like you're arguing that sensitivity to past injustices prompts the media to favor stories that chastise "men who still bite dogs"... And yet when asked if that's the case, your response is... ... that these sorts of decisions are driven by profit. Personally, I disagree. I don't think profit explains it. I don't think non-white violence against whites is so commonplace that it's just not newsworthy. I think the newsworthiness of a given event is determined by specific circumstances, but if race is an aspect of that story, the sensibilities with which race is addressed are very different depending whether the attacker is white or non-white. -k

There's a bumper sticker going around that says "I support gay marriage... ...as long as both women are hot." -k

What makes you say it's the exception? I'm of the opinion that violence against white people by non-white people is underreported and when it's reported the racial aspect is downplayed or ignored. Several examples have been offered, not just the Buffalo incident. If you wish to dispute the point, maybe you should offer a counter-example. -k

I guess it was a little much for me to expect someone your age to remember something I posted way back on November 10, 2009. Ok, instead of giving me ridiculous dodges like pondering what constitutes "ample coverage" or whether national media outlets in the US are the "same" as ones in Canada, how about answering a simple yes or no question for me: If 10 to 15 white men had attacked an 18 year old black boy for dating a white girl in Buffalo, do you think the story would have been picked up by media outlets outside of Buffalo? Come on, Morris, why don't you shock me by actually answering this one. -k

I have no interest in being a Senior. The once-a-month discount on groceries appears to be a terrible trade-off for the terrible clothes, shoddy driving, bad teeth, loss of bladder control, and compulsion to yell "git off my lawn!" at random intervals. Your current configuration makes a pretty good argument for moving the "interests" field off of the message headers. If Morris is allowed to take up half a page with his list of interests, I should be allowed to have pictures of fluffy kittens in my signature. -k