Typical Media anti White Bias-

[Shwa]

What. Your argument is that the Montreal Massacre was newsy because it was "extreme misogyny" rather than because it was one of the largest mass-murders in Canadian history?

No shark jumping, but some copping out I see.:

You say that "If the media reported incidents of chick-battery as "hate crimes", even if the victim claimed "extreme misogyny!", nobody would take it seriously."

I am saying: It would be taken seriously especially in light of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in our collective memory. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that you wouldn't take it seriously?

And again, you ignored the point about this being a white-on-white crime of hate. The hate angle was widely reported in the news. Where is the "typical anti-White bias" in the Ecole Polytechnique hate crime news reports?

There isn't any.

Kimmy, you haven't proven to me that there is any anti-white bias in the media to any convincing degree. The difficulty of proving such a position is that you face the dilemma of the conspiracy theorist. You might be able to pick a story here and there to support your case, but that only proves that a writer or an editor 'here or there' has an anti-white bias, not "the media" - which is a very large and varied entity.

Thus I now agree the the discussion has jumped the shark.

[kimmy]

You say that "If the media reported incidents of chick-battery as "hate crimes", even if the victim claimed "extreme misogyny!", nobody would take it seriously."

I am saying: It would be taken seriously especially in light of the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in our collective memory. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that you wouldn't take it seriously?

You can't provide any examples of routine battery becoming built up as a "hate crime" news story. For you to propose that the media would react that way if the victims just alleged it to be a hate crime is just a hypothesis. And a poorly thought out one. It's laughable to me that you're apparently quite serious about this line of argument.

And again, you ignored the point about this being a white-on-white crime of hate. The hate angle was widely reported in the news. Where is the "typical anti-White bias" in the Ecole Polytechnique hate crime news reports?

There isn't any.

When the suspect himself declares out loud and in his manifesto that he's motivated by hate, the media had no choice but to cover that aspect of the story.

The test of bias isn't in what someone does when the choices are made for them, it's in what they do when they have the power to make decisions for themselves.

Kimmy, you haven't proven to me that there is any anti-white bias in the media to any convincing degree. The difficulty of proving such a position is that you face the dilemma of the conspiracy theorist. You might be able to pick a story here and there to support your case, but that only proves that a writer or an editor 'here or there' has an anti-white bias, not "the media" - which is a very large and varied entity.

It's not a question of an editor here or there ignoring one story or hyping another far out of proportion. When stories like Brian Milligan or Channon Christian or the Wichita massacre remain unknown outside of the local news, it's because dozens and dozens of editors coast to coast all made the same decision. When stories like James Byrd and Matthew Sheppard and Duke lacrosse all get huge national coverage, it's likewise because a lot of editors came to the same decision.

-k

[Shwa]

You can't provide any examples of routine battery becoming built up as a "hate crime" news story. For you to propose that the media would react that way if the victims just alleged it to be a hate crime is just a hypothesis. And a poorly thought out one. It's laughable to me that you're apparently quite serious about this line of argument.

You wrote "nobody" would take it seriously. That is your assertion, not mine. An assertion which you can't possibly know or predict. So it is poorly written. It would be a ridiculous assertion that "nobody would take it seriously" especially nowadays since hate crime allegations make stories more newsworthy. So if you would like to re-state, feel free.

You are proposing that "the media would react" not I. This is the tactic of a conspiracy theorist kimmy. I am not going to acquiesce to be involved in your theories. I am merely saying that someone would react. In the case of the two lesbians in Oshawa, they asked their lawyer to look into hate charges. This was reported in the news and investigated by the police. It isn't such a stretch to presume that should two women get punched out in a schooyard and they make a hate crime complaint to their lawyer, that it wouldn't get reported in the news. You say yourself that hate crimes make for newsworthiness.

BTW - two women getting punched out in a school yard while classes are getting let out is hardly "routine battery." Well, at least not in this part of the country, I can't answer for yours.

When the suspect himself declares out loud and in his manifesto that he's motivated by hate, the media had no choice but to cover that aspect of the story.

The test of bias isn't in what someone does when the choices are made for them, it's in what they do when they have the power to make decisions for themselves.

Like Donald Napierala, who is white and admitted to hate crime charges against a "mixed-race" couple, one of who is white. No outrageous national media coverage of note. Editors had made their choices. How about the MAX train black-on-white hate crime assault in Portland? Highly publicized apparently. Editors made their choices. Of course, you are familiar with both of these stories right?

[kimmy]

You wrote "nobody" would take it seriously. That is your assertion, not mine. An assertion which you can't possibly know or predict. So it is poorly written. It would be a ridiculous assertion that "nobody would take it seriously" especially nowadays since hate crime allegations make stories more newsworthy. So if you would like to re-state, feel free.

Only certain hate crimes are newsworthy, as I keep pointing out. If you've got examples of routine crimes (say, assault) with female victims becoming big news because of a claim of "extreme misogyny", let's hear 'em. It's been 20 years since Ecole Polytechnique. The only ones playing this angle are angry feminists making speeches at "take back the night" marches, and that's just not "big news".

You are proposing that "the media would react" not I. This is the tactic of a conspiracy theorist kimmy. I am not going to acquiesce to be involved in your theories. I am merely saying that someone would react. In the case of the two lesbians in Oshawa, they asked their lawyer to look into hate charges. This was reported in the news and investigated by the police. It isn't such a stretch to presume that should two women get punched out in a schooyard and they make a hate crime complaint to their lawyer, that it wouldn't get reported in the news. You say yourself that hate crimes make for newsworthiness.

-the articles you've provided make clear that the hate crime claim came from the lesbians themselves, not from a lawyer.

-the police comment on the demand for hate crime charges is that the incident does not meet the criteria of Sections 318 and 319.

-people don't generally go to a lawyer when they've been victims of a crime, they go to the police. Or in this case the media as well.

What I'm claiming is that the "hate crime" claim wouldn't make such a case big news. That's conjecture on my part. You claim to the opposite is conjecture too.

My conjecture is supported by the complete absence of counterexamples, and by the fact that even cases where discussion of hate crime would have been warranted have not been covered in such a way.

Your conjecture is supported by your hope that it might be true because it would help your argument.

BTW - two women getting punched out in a school yard while classes are getting let out is hardly "routine battery." Well, at least not in this part of the country, I can't answer for yours.

Someone getting punched doesn't makes the news. Not even here in the mid-sized community I live in, certainly not in the Greater Toronto Area. All of us know that this sort of a story gets almost no ink at all, much less the number of articles this case has apparently generated.

Like Donald Napierala, who is white and admitted to hate crime charges against a "mixed-race" couple, one of who is white. No outrageous national media coverage of note. Editors had made their choices.

Hmm. Maybe a Puerto-Rican man with a white wife just aren't sufficiently sympathetic victims. However, the claim was bias, not universality.

How about the MAX train black-on-white hate crime assault in Portland? Highly publicized apparently. Editors made their choices. Of course, you are familiar with both of these stories right?

You've handed me another black on white hate-crime that remained local news? I suppose I should say thank you for helping prove the point.

-k

[Shwa]

I suppose I should say thank you for helping prove the point.

No. They were two news reports that remained "local." One with a white perpetrator and hispanic/white victims and one with several blacks and a white victim. Equal results. No bias.

However, the claim was bias, not universality.

Cop out. "Typical Media anti White Bias" I don't see any qualifications for "media" as anything less than universal even though the discussion has been limited to US and Canadian examples. We haven't even touched on the so-called misogynist hate crime claims in honour killings in some religions that are reported in the media. However, if you would like to reframe your position, please feel free.

-the articles you've provided make clear that the hate crime claim came from the lesbians themselves, not from a lawyer.

-the police comment on the demand for hate crime charges is that the incident does not meet the criteria of Sections 318 and 319.

-people don't generally go to a lawyer when they've been victims of a crime, they go to the police. Or in this case the media as well.

The information all came from the media - news media to be exact - in news articles a al "newsworthy" subject matter. Whether you agree what should/could/how/what is of no consequence and is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the reporting of hate crimes in the media. No conjecture here, I supplied the links to the news stories. These are called 'counterexamples.'

Someone getting punched doesn't makes the news.

+

BTW - two women getting punched out in a school yard while classes are getting let out is hardly "routine battery." Well, at least not in this part of the country, I can't answer for yours.

So you have conveniently reduce "two women" in a "school yard while classes are getting let out" to "someone" and "getting punched." Nice example of the reductionist fallacy to water down the details to draw a general conclusion about something completely different. Come off it, you can do better than that.

Only certain hate crimes are newsworthy, as I keep pointing out.

You are correct here. The ones that include a victim(s) and a perpetrator(s). Otherwise, you haven't convinced me of any anti-white bias in the media when it comes to reporting of hate crimes - "universality" or not.

[Argus]

Speaking about double standards...

Imagine a reverse situation. Imagine if the aggressors and bigots were heritage Canadians harassing a Muslim teacher with these hateful words. It would have been a cause celebre and the media would have called for an investigative inquiry into the origins of the serious social problem represented by these racialized students and their families.

Classrooms of Hate

[Shwa]

Speaking about double standards...

Imagine a reverse situation. Imagine if the aggressors and bigots were heritage Canadians harassing a Muslim teacher with these hateful words...

Classrooms of Hate

Interesting. But wouldn't the "reverse situation" be if a Muslim teacher were harassed by Jewish students?

[kimmy]

No. They were two news reports that remained "local." One with a white perpetrator and hispanic/white victims and one with several blacks and a white victim. Equal results. No bias.

You've yet to provide an example of a "hate crime" news story that doesn't more accurately fit the "identity-politics crime" descriptor I coined earlier.

Find me a story with a heterosexual, non-Jewish white victim that received excessive news coverage because of a hate crime angle. You can't dispute the claim of bias without providing me such an example.

You need a non-identity-politics victim counterexample to Duke lacrosse to make your case, and you can't provide one.

Cop out. "Typical Media anti White Bias" I don't see any qualifications for "media" as anything less than universal even though the discussion has been limited to US and Canadian examples. We haven't even touched on the so-called misogynist hate crime claims in honour killings in some religions that are reported in the media. However, if you would like to reframe your position, please feel free.

Even in these cases where misogyny is an undeniable aspect of the crime, has anybody actually reported on it as a hate crime? I have yet to see an example.

The information all came from the media - news media to be exact - in news articles a al "newsworthy" subject matter. Whether you agree what should/could/how/what is of no consequence and is irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the reporting of hate crimes in the media. No conjecture here, I supplied the links to the news stories. These are called 'counterexamples.'

That case doesn't support the argument you're trying to make, so it's not really a counterexample. It's a better example for my argument than for yours, because it illustrates the extent to which the right identity-politics optics can turn an event that's just not newsworthy into a news story.

So you have conveniently reduce "two women" in a "school yard while classes are getting let out" to "someone" and "getting punched." Nice example of the reductionist fallacy to water down the details to draw a general conclusion about something completely different. Come off it, you can do better than that.

Nice attempt at using big words to dodge the obvious fact: this story just wouldn't be news without the homosexual victims calling for hate crime charges.

You are correct here. The ones that include a victim(s) and a perpetrator(s). Otherwise, you haven't convinced me of any anti-white bias in the media when it comes to reporting of hate crimes - "universality" or not.

And you haven't provided the counterexample to Duke lacrosse. You can't dispute the claim of bias without one.

-k

[Shwa]

Now you are arguing against me instead of for your position.

You need a non-identity-politics victim counterexample to Duke lacrosse to make your case, and you can't provide one.

And the Duke lacrosse players were "non-identity?" LOFL! Gimme a break, you are missing a dimension of the story that made it more compelling than, say, the Donald R. Napierala case. So back we go to the story from Portland:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300

"...highly publicized..." They say the story was highly publicized not me. If it doesn't pass your test of 'outside' local then perhaps that is more a function of your selectivity in which news you read than any media bias.

And you still haven't convinced me that there is an anti-white bias.

[kimmy]

Now you are arguing against me instead of for your position.

I've argued my position repeatedly. And right now, I'm disputing your counterargument. You haven't accomplished what you claim you have, despite making a big show of patting yourself on the back.

And the Duke lacrosse players were "non-identity?" LOFL!

How did you possibly get that out of what I wrote? Are you playing dumb to keep getting out of addressing the question?

I did not say the Duke lacrosse players are "non-identity". I said you need to provide me a counterexample to the Duke case with a non-identity-politics victim.

It's obvious that without a black "victim", the Duke lacrosse case wouldn't have been news. The "hate crime" allegation is what made it a national news item and attracted the sensationalist coverage it received.

If you disagree with my claim that "identity politics" and not "hate" is the real factor in the sensationalism, provide me with a counterexample. You've provided me with lesbians, and you've provided me with a hate crime with a white victim that received no notice outside of the community where it happened. Both examples make my argument, not yours.

Gimme a break, you are missing a dimension of the story that made it more compelling than, say, the Donald R. Napierala case.

And what's your theory on what that dimension is?

So back we go to the story from Portland:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300

"...highly publicized..." They say the story was highly publicized not me. If it doesn't pass your test of 'outside' local then perhaps that is more a function of your selectivity in which news you read than any media bias.

Their description "highly publicized" is completely without qualification. It might have been "highly publicized" in Portland Oregon local news. It might just mean there were 4 articles written about it. Your lesbians incident would qualify as "highly publicized" too.

However, I did a quick search and found nothing to indicate it received news coverage outside of Portland. There was certainly none of the sensationalism that "identity-politics crimes" have generated. The fact is, neither of us would have ever heard of this if you weren't desperately Googling to try and find me a "hate crime" with black attackers and a white victim. Well, congrats, you found one, but really just helped prove my point that it's not big news if the identity-politics aren't right.

And you still haven't convinced me that there is an anti-white bias.

If there's no bias, why can't you provide me a counterexample?

-k

[charter.rights]

However, I did a quick search and found nothing to indicate it received news coverage outside of Portland. There was certainly none of the sensationalism that "identity-politics crimes" have generated. The fact is, neither of us would have ever heard of this if you weren't desperately Googling to try and find me a "hate crime" with black attackers and a white victim. Well, congrats, you found one, but really just helped prove my point that it's not big news if the identity-politics aren't right.

-k

IMO You just lost your argument.

[kimmy]

IMO You just lost your argument.

Your opinion is of almost no value to anybody, c.r, and it gets even cheaper each time you offer it.

-k

[charter.rights]

Now you dissolve to ad hominem. Good for you! Are you trying to exhaust all your fallacy arguments?

I have read the back and forth for quite a while now. You lose. And you defeated your own argument no less....

[kimmy]

I have read the back and forth for quite a while now. You lose. And you defeated your own argument no less....

You obviously haven't been reading very closely, because the fact that a hate crime with a white victim went ignored by national press doesn't defeat my argument, it completely supports my argument.

That you can't even comprehend that much speaks volumes.

-k

[charter.rights]

All you can come up with is more ad hominmen? What a poor loser.

No, I have read the entire thread as it has been evolving. My take on it is that you haven't been able to prove YOUR point, since it was you who was first challenged on your statements. And with that last statement you sunk your ship.

I'll wait for shwa to concur.

[Michael Hardner]

All you can come up with is more ad hominmen? What a poor loser.

No, I have read the entire thread as it has been evolving. My take on it is that you haven't been able to prove YOUR point, since it was you who was first challenged on your statements. And with that last statement you sunk your ship.

I'll wait for shwa to concur.

Can someone here please restate what the two Portland cases were, briefly ? And how do they support/not uspport your point ? Two sentences.

[Shwa]

I've argued my position repeatedly.

Not really. All you have done is re-cite a very small sample as an indication of a general condition. That is called 'generalizing' and doesn't pass muster. In order for you to be convincing you need to demonstrate that you have done research both for and against your position and that your research indicates an overwhelming evidence for bias exists. You haven't done this. The only evidence I see here is that kimmy knows how to generalize and draw unfounded conclusions based on a small sample dataset ordered to support a generalist conclusion.

Subsequently, you spent an inordinate amount of time trying to reframe my "counterexamples" to fit the progressively delimiting scope of your postion. When confronted with evidence contrary to your position you try to delimit the meaning of that evidence within a shrinking frame of positional reference. "identity politics" "localized" "non-identity" "playing dumb" These are all efforts to reframe the question favourable to your small evidence sample rather than enlargen your evidence to answer the question at hand. In addition you ignore other factors that contribute to the 'newsworthiness' of a particular event. This refers to the reductionist fallacy and, combined with the obviously small sample data, it is a titch dishonest.

In that light, I would have to concur with c.r

If you wish to discover media bias, read 'Manufactured Consent' by Herman and Chomsky. Their research is very thorough and very convincing. Also, take a look at the Jena Six story which has generated data about both side of the argument. The Jena Six story is a very fascinating take on the modern mass media in the US.

[kimmy]

Can someone here please restate what the two Portland cases were, briefly ? And how do they support/not uspport your point ? Two sentences.

I'm not aware of a 2nd Portland case, Michael. Here is the case that has been referenced here: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300

My 2 sentences:

To briefly restate the case, a group of black teenagers face charges that include "hate crimes" charges after they beat and robbed a white woman while yelling racial epithets at her.

To briefly state why it supports my argument, I assert that it is another example showing that a "hate crime" with a white victim does not receive the same attention as a "hate crime" with an "identity-politics" victim, contrary to the claim made by media apologists that it was the "blatant hate motive" and not the identity of the victim that made similar stories newsworthy.

-k

{now let's hear charter-rights' 2 sentences. This should be hilarious.}

[kimmy]

Not really. All you have done is re-cite a very small sample as an indication of a general condition. That is called 'generalizing' and doesn't pass muster. In order for you to be convincing you need to demonstrate that you have done research both for and against your position and that your research indicates an overwhelming evidence for bias exists. You haven't done this. The only evidence I see here is that kimmy knows how to generalize and draw unfounded conclusions based on a small sample dataset ordered to support a generalist conclusion.

I obviously haven't done enough research to write a thesis on the subject. I've offered a hypothesis that agrees with all data that's been presented so far, including the examples you've offered. I'm not a criminal lawyer trying to get a conviction in a court of law, I don't need to prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have put forth a reasonable argument. You, on the other hand, seem to have the attitude of a defense attorney, apparently believing that if I can't "prove" there's a bias, then you "win". You don't "win". I can't "prove" there's a bias, but I've done a much better job of arguing that there is than you've done of disputing it.

I've stated my case in 2 different threads, and it's largely summed up

here

and

here

...and most of the stuff I wrote there has not been addressed at all.

Subsequently, you spent an inordinate amount of time trying to reframe my "counterexamples" to fit the progressively delimiting scope of your postion. When confronted with evidence contrary to your position you try to delimit the meaning of that evidence within a shrinking frame of positional reference.

For purposes of the discussion, "anti-white" was adequate to the scope of the discussion (which was strictly to do with race, as you'll recall, you were there.) When the scope of the topic was broadened, I refined the premise to include all of the additional information I've been provided with. And it does.

I've gone from this...

Hate crimes against white victims are less newsy than hate crimes with non-white victims.

To this...

Hate crimes against white victims are less newsy than hate crimes with non-white victims (unless the media can find another identity-politics angle to play, such as gay or Jewish.)

And you've not challenged that in the least; rather you're busy finding excuses to not challenge it.

"identity politics"

As I've amended my position to include an identity politics factor, yes, this is rather central.

"localized"

Yes, the scale of news coverage (ie, the immense national news coverage afforded Duke lacrosse or James Byrd vs the hate incidents in Portland or Buffalo remaining strictly local) is also rather central. You can't ignore that aspect of it just because it's inconvenient for you.

"non-identity" "playing dumb"

And since I've already corrected you once on "non-identity", you apparently really are "playing dumb" by repeating it a second time.

These are all efforts to reframe the question favourable to your small evidence sample rather than enlargen your evidence to answer the question at hand. In addition you ignore other factors that contribute to the 'newsworthiness' of a particular event. This refers to the reductionist fallacy and, combined with the obviously small sample data, it is a titch dishonest.

You've offered nothing to dispute my premise other than a similarly small number of examples. I haven't ignored them, I've adjusted my position to account for them.

-k

[Shwa]

I obviously haven't done enough research to write a thesis on the subject. I've offered a hypothesis that agrees with all data that's been presented so far, including the examples you've offered.

No one is expecting you to write a thesis, but at least back up your position with fact. You haven't done that. Just conjecture, speculation, opinion and wishful thinking. I thought you had access to some media studies or could correlate other studies into a coherent proposition, but all you have is a small selective sample that is subject to nothing more than your impressions of purpose. We learn more about kimmy's personal bias than anything to do with the media.

You've offered nothing to dispute my premise other than a similarly small number of examples. I haven't ignored them, I've adjusted my position to account for them.

Yes. That has become painfully clear.

[kimmy]

No one is expecting you to write a thesis, but at least back up your position with fact. You haven't done that. Just conjecture, speculation, opinion and wishful thinking. I thought you had access to some media studies or could correlate other studies into a coherent proposition, but all you have is a small selective sample that is subject to nothing more than your impressions of purpose. We learn more about kimmy's personal bias than anything to do with the media.

I've offered a hypothesis, and one that appears to account for all the information that's been presented. If you don't agree, why don't you present information that my hypothesis can't explain?

I've presented lots of examples, I've shown you the media trying to create a hate crime news story with no information other than the races of the attacker and victim, I've offered media self-analysis of the issue, I've provided expert opinions. You, on the other hand... you've thrown stuff at the wall and hoped something sticks, then moaned and complained when I've pointed out that no, it didn't stick.

Yes. That has become painfully clear.

Which was entirely fair, when the scope of the discussion expanded. If you wanted to keep the discussion strictly about race, you shouldn't have introduced Jews and homosexuals.

-k

[g_bambino]

Your opinion is of almost no value to anybody, c.r, and it gets even cheaper each time you offer it.

I'm sure it galls CR that you're pulling out into the open the workings of identity politics, exposing the often inherent hypocricy that lies therein; given that he's made it a life-long mission to find excuses for the poor behaviour of any fashionable minority, you're threatening what may well be the only reason he gets out of bed in the morning. For those of us who don't fear thinking beyond the limited confines of political correctness, your position makes sense, kimmy; it only took a browse through the last two or three pages for me to figure out what you were arguing and agree with it. CR saying "you lose!" is just his pretentious substitute for "do shut up now, I don't like what you're saying."

[sp]

Edited December 4, 2009 by g_bambino

[Shwa]

I've offered a hypothesis, and one that appears to account for all the information that's been presented.

You have used a very limited dataset to draw a conclusion of a general social condition. You arbitrarily assign higher values to the properties of the data than is warranted. And you haven't even proven that the higher values are warranted, let alone real. If you offer a hypothesis, then as an un-biased observer, I would expect you to be first in line trying to disprove it. I have yet to see any of that type of critical honesty.

If you don't agree, why don't you present information that my hypothesis can't explain?

First of all, why don't you present information that your hypothesis can't explain? Secondly, when presented with information that goes contrary to your hypothesis, you shift scope and arbitrarily assign limitations to that information to support your bias.

I've presented lots of examples,

Your "lots of examples" is a very small sample. Period.

I've shown you the media trying to create a hate crime news story with no information other than the races of the attacker and victim, I've offered media self-analysis of the issue, I've provided expert opinions.

See my 'critical honesty' comment above.

You, on the other hand... you've thrown stuff at the wall and hoped something sticks, then moaned and complained when I've pointed out that no, it didn't stick.

Now is this an example of you arguing for your point or against me?

Which was entirely fair, when the scope of the discussion expanded. If you wanted to keep the discussion strictly about race, you shouldn't have introduced Jews and homosexuals.

A perfect example of how you shift scope when your original scope becomes untenable. I didn't "introduce" Jews and homosexuals, you just arbitrarily assigned values to those properties and cited them as an exception because it went contrary to your position.

So you have failed to convince me that there is any 'typical media anti-white bias' - whether we are talking about hate crimes, football or economics. But you have unerringly convinced me that you think there is. Not the same thing.

[cybercoma]

What I find particularly amusing about this entire thread is that nearly everyone is reifying media. The media does this or the media does that. Funny.

[Shwa]

What I find particularly amusing about this entire thread is that nearly everyone is reifying media. The media does this or the media does that. Funny.

You might be on to something! Go on...