Typical Media anti White Bias-

[cybercoma]

Maybe, maybe not. What is the media? There is no collective of "the media" and it doesn't act. The media is a group of individuals making their own decisions. Those individuals, moreover, are running businesses and make decisions in the interest of business. There could be FOX News bias, CTV News bias, or Globe & Mail bias, but those groups don't act as a whole. There could, to be sure, be reporter bias, although I imagine editors have to review stories before they go to air or are published in papers. There can't be media bias because "media" isn't actually a real thing; it's a name we give to an idea. Particular parts of what make up the media could show bias, but that is wholly dependent on the individuals that make up those parts. Certainly, those running the news networks show bias for their financiers because they make money from ad revenues. Once again, though, those biases would be particular to the company or individuals, rather than this idea of "media" itself having a bias.

[kimmy]

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.

This is not a peer-reviewed journal of social science. This is a message board. I've supported my views more than adequately.

I think you're the one with the bias. Your mind is made up on the subject, and unable to argue against my position itself, all you can come up with is to complain about the way I've presented it.

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.

You're the one claiming I'm wrong, the onus is on you to demonstrate why.

My use of your lesbians to support my position is entirely reasonable and completely fair.

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

If you feel I've overlooked data that counters my opinion, feel free to bring it to the discussion.

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

I've already put forth my argument. I'm just pointing out that you have not done the same.

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.

The original topic of the discussion was strictly along racial lines, and the claim of racial bias is reasonable when the discussion is restricted to those lines. When factors other than race were introduced, expanding my argument to account for the additional information is fair.

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.

I do think there is. I've provided a reasonable case to support that view.

That you aren't convinced is of little importance to me. I don't consider it my mission to convince everyone I'm right. While you may not be convinced I am right, I have to point out that you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I am wrong.

And unless you wish to address my argument, I'll just leave it at that.

-k

[Shwa]

And unless you wish to address my argument...

I have and your argument is weak, unconvincing, lacks substance and is borderline. It appears to be based an a priori personal opinion and you have done very little else to expand it beyond that. If you choose to believe otherwise, it is a free country.

[Shwa]

Maybe, maybe not. What is the media? There is no collective of "the media" and it doesn't act. The media is a group of individuals making their own decisions. Those individuals, moreover, are running businesses and make decisions in the interest of business. There could be FOX News bias, CTV News bias, or Globe & Mail bias, but those groups don't act as a whole. There could, to be sure, be reporter bias, although I imagine editors have to review stories before they go to air or are published in papers. There can't be media bias because "media" isn't actually a real thing; it's a name we give to an idea. Particular parts of what make up the media could show bias, but that is wholly dependent on the individuals that make up those parts. Certainly, those running the news networks show bias for their financiers because they make money from ad revenues. Once again, though, those biases would be particular to the company or individuals, rather than this idea of "media" itself having a bias.

Very insightful cybercoma, however I would have to ask: does there need to be an expressed collaboration between the various components of the media for a bias to exist? That is, could there be a collective unconcious bias towards some subject keeping in mind that "the media" is made up of individuals in various capacities that decide what is 'news.' For instance, could there be a similar enough set of beliefs within the news editorial community - or a large portion thereof - that could result in homogeneous news reporting on a particular subject? You have already stated one - that they make decisions in the interests of their business - but are there be others?

I would think that, if there were an unconcious collective bias, it would not be counterintuititve to their 'prime directive' (so to speak) of good business decisions.

[cybercoma]

Honestly, I've never really given any of this much thought. As far as other biases, the first thing that jumps out at me is the source of news stories. It seems that the major news organizations take press releases, from the US government especially, but also from the Canadian government here, at face value without any in depth research into the subjects. There's probably a number of social reasons for this, but it's also good business sense to get the story out ASAP. Socially, we're bombarded with more information now than we ever have been. Headline news stations look for sound bites to encapsulate complicated ideas and problems. Furthermore, internet news (via RSS readers or web-browsers) allows people to flip through stories quickly and gives them access to nearly limitless information. These factors and business sense persuade news companies to get information out as quickly as possible with as little detail as possible, since they don't have the time to do full research on the topics. The consumers of news, as a result, are less likely to be able to sit through an thorough analysis of any situation and are also less likely to take the time to pause, think, and question what is being presented to them. All of this is, of course, speculative assumptions on my part. Like I said, I've never really given it much thought.

[bloodyminded]

Honestly, I've never really given any of this much thought. As far as other biases, the first thing that jumps out at me is the source of news stories. It seems that the major news organizations take press releases, from the US government especially, but also from the Canadian government here, at face value without any in depth research into the subjects. There's probably a number of social reasons for this, but it's also good business sense to get the story out ASAP. Socially, we're bombarded with more information now than we ever have been. Headline news stations look for sound bites to encapsulate complicated ideas and problems. Furthermore, internet news (via RSS readers or web-browsers) allows people to flip through stories quickly and gives them access to nearly limitless information. These factors and business sense persuade news companies to get information out as quickly as possible with as little detail as possible, since they don't have the time to do full research on the topics. The consumers of news, as a result, are less likely to be able to sit through an thorough analysis of any situation and are also less likely to take the time to pause, think, and question what is being presented to them. All of this is, of course, speculative assumptions on my part. Like I said, I've never really given it much thought.

No, I think this is an excellent, partial summation. In fact, this suggests there IS "bias," though it is less on strictly ideoligical grounds than those who promote the "liberal media bias" thesis would have it.

There are institutional biases towards Power. As you say, most sourcing (and you are correct--your speculation is in fact easily verifiable) comes from government and busienss spokespeople. That's not even a controversial assertion, if we pause to think about it for all of four seconds.

So among major mass media, at least, the tendency is towards a bias for wealth and power. The information we get, if we don't research and analyze, is...well, it's the information we get.

We can look at it another way: subtract Charles Dickens and a handful of others from the literary canon, and we'd be apt to belive that wealth and erudition were the normative aspects of 19th Century life. When in fact, then (and, actually, now) dire poverty and media voicelessness is so prevalent that it's virtually the human condition.

[Shwa]

No, I think this is an excellent, partial summation

And I agree. I think that since most major news sources are some from one level or another of government, there is a bias there that is not counterintuitive toward the business model of mass media as it stands in North America. There are marked differences between the US and Canada though, but in the end it comes down to the bottom line for everyone I think.

[cybercoma]

I'm just thinking, in regards to pushing the agenda of business and wealth, the government is also on the side of the corporations. The only reason unions are recognized is to allow for stability in capital relations (read: to keep the workers from causing disruptions). Go back to the Winnipeg Strike and you can see the government will use force to back money. Fast forward to today. "The media" is financed by advertisers and corporations, then they receive the bulk of their reports word-for-word from the government itself. I always find it a little unsettling when I read an article in The National Post and The Globe & Mail and it is nearly word for word the same. Wealth drives the media and the government clearly backs wealth (over the interests of community anyway). Capital is all that matters. Anti-white bias has to be a myth, considering visible minorities are disproportionately impoverished, particularly in the US, and there is clearly a pro-capital bias in the media.

Edited December 7, 2009 by cybercoma

[Shwa]

Wealth drives the media and the government clearly backs wealth...

Yes, but. Who do advertisers advertise to? Who buys the products that are advertised or that the big corporations produce?

So I think backing wealth at the expense of 'the people' or, in cynical times, the electorate is counterintuitive to business for both media and goverment. That is, the National Post or Globe or Star do not have a monopoly so they must compete for readership (or viewership in modern times). This means that social issues are relevant and that includes labour issues and such. Most relevant print media emply an editorial board who decide what is relevant and some, like the Star, also have a 'community' editorial board comprised of volunteer representatives from the community.

Now I would agree that the anti-white bias is a myth, but is it possible that there is a pro-multiculturalism bias in mass media in Canada? (I know some might conclude that pro-multiculturalism = anti-white, but that simply is not true. It is faulty reasoning.)

Edited December 8, 2009 by Shwa

[Argus]

This is a story which was actually one of those responsible for some of the postings I made on this thread, and a perfect illustration of how the media self-censors in it's determination not to appear to be portraying any non-white group in a poor light. As compared to the main inspiration of this thread, those three wack jobs in BC who tried to beat up the black guy.

This story is long and detailed and shows just how violent and vicious this collection of thugs were with the casual violence they meted out at a hockey arena. But the only identificaton of them is as "youths". Throughout the story "youths" or "teens" is used, and of course, no names are listed as they are under 18. However, the adults arrested and charged, who are also not named, are Somalians - as are all the youths involved. Most people in Ottawa are aware, by word of mouth, that almost any large group of "youths" involved in violence are actually Somalians. But the media continue to do their best to hide the fact.

Teens guilty in Bloody Attack at Rink

[Michael Hardner]

This is a story which was actually one of those responsible for some of the postings I made on this thread, and a perfect illustration of how the media self-censors in it's determination not to appear to be portraying any non-white group in a poor light. As compared to the main inspiration of this thread, those three wack jobs in BC who tried to beat up the black guy.

This story is long and detailed and shows just how violent and vicious this collection of thugs were with the casual violence they meted out at a hockey arena. But the only identificaton of them is as "youths". Throughout the story "youths" or "teens" is used, and of course, no names are listed as they are under 18. However, the adults arrested and charged, who are also not named, are Somalians - as are all the youths involved. Most people in Ottawa are aware, by word of mouth, that almost any large group of "youths" involved in violence are actually Somalians. But the media continue to do their best to hide the fact.

Teens guilty in Bloody Attack at Rink

This article says they were Lebanese, wrongly identified as Somali:

But in court, Lee said it was a Lebanese male, fitting the description of one of two 17-year-olds on trial for aggravated assault, who had the shovel.

Ottawa Citizen

Since the witness himself is prone to error, I can see why they're reluctant to publish such things. I would hate to see "Italian-looking male suspected" in the paper here all the time, when it may in fact be a Portugese problem.

[Argus]

This article says they were Lebanese, wrongly identified as Somali:

No he intially wrongly identified the one which hit him as one of the Somalis. Most of the attackers were Somalis. There are no black Lebanese that I'm aware of.

The hockey player was able to identify one of the accused as a black male who dropped two textbooks before fleeing.

In addition the names of the adults charged are Somali, not Lebanese. Still, I must admit I'm surprised that there was an article which mentioned in any way - even by quoting the testimony, that the assailants were non-white.

[Michael Hardner]

No he intially wrongly identified the one which hit him as one of the Somalis. Most of the attackers were Somalis. There are no black Lebanese that I'm aware of.

The hockey player was able to identify one of the accused as a black male who dropped two textbooks before fleeing.

In addition the names of the adults charged are Somali, not Lebanese. Still, I must admit I'm surprised that there was an article which mentioned in any way - even by quoting the testimony, that the assailants were non-white.

Argus, it's just clear what you're saying. It was a mixed gang of Lebanese and Somali ? And how do you know they were non-white ? Plenty of Lebanese are white skinned.

I'm trying to follow your logic here, but failing.

Do you want them to actually say - some kind-of-beige skinned people were arrested, along with a few darker-brown types ? As I mentioned, newspaper articles don't mention the Italian-ness Portugese-ness or Greek-ness of accused... and it's been even awhile since they pointed out the Irishness of them as well.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[kimmy]

This is a story which was actually one of those responsible for some of the postings I made on this thread, and a perfect illustration of how the media self-censors in it's determination not to appear to be portraying any non-white group in a poor light. As compared to the main inspiration of this thread, those three wack jobs in BC who tried to beat up the black guy.

A similar recent story was the brutal beating of two RCMP officers at Cadotte Lake in northern Alberta. No article that I read on the incident mentioned that Cadotte Lake is on Woodland Cree I.R. #226, or that all of the people arrested were native.

So... was it relevant to the story?

On the one hand, you could argue that since all of the suspects had already been identified and taken into custody, there was no need to provide the public with information that could help identify them. On the other hand, there might be questions surrounding the event where that's pertinent information.

I provided an example earlier in the thread of cases where the media declined to mention the race of at-large native suspects, and additionally the Toronto rape gang case where the racial aspect had been made a prominent issue by the families of the accused early in the case, but was dropped completely from the coverage once the convictions and guilty pleas were obtained.

-k

[Jack Weber]

This is bit off topic,but it relates to the original poster...

This should come as no surprise at all,but after looking up some things I saw after clicking on his screen name...

The definition and explanation of what a Lictor is...

http://www.livius.org/li-ln/lictor/lictor.html

Interesting ...Note the prominence of the fasces...

You'll also find a phrase in Latin there...

Magna Europa est Patria Nostra

Great Europe is our Fatherland

If you google that,you'll eventually find links to many white supremecist sites.

There's also a...What looks like a sketch of someone( perhaps Francisco Franco or Oliviera Salazar)with the phrae "He Knew" under it...I don't know what that means...

Not shockingly,what we are dealing with is a kid in his mid 20's who is a Fascist and(also not shocking) a white supremecist.

Lictor..You are neither cryptic or clever.You really should stop trying to intellectualize your simple minded bigotry,by calling people anti-white.You are anti anything but white.And your Fascist Manifesto is sitting over there on the scrap heap of history along with Das Kapital and Mein Kampf...

[kimmy]

Lictor..You are neither cryptic or clever.

I don't think there was anything cryptic about Lictor's beliefs. He was pretty up front about it. He hasn't been here for months, btw.

While I do not like Lictor or his ideology, I'd suggest that even odious views can result in important topics being raised.

-k

[Jack Weber]

I don't think there was anything cryptic about Lictor's beliefs. He was pretty up front about it. He hasn't been here for months, btw.

While I do not like Lictor or his ideology, I'd suggest that even odious views can result in important topics being raised.

-k

I agree that he's not hiding anything...He was/is trying to put an intellectual face on white supremacy,however.I realize he has'nt been here for a while...I suspect that's because he could'nt get anyone to actually agree with him at all.No doubt he has gone back to his NeoNAZI message boards to rejoin the bigot reaffirmation session there.

The larger issue of people like him being able to say ridiculously hateful things is an interesting one.This thread is probaly the best way to fight that level of hatred.In other words,instead of trying to shout him down,posters asked Lictor to prove his case.He really could'nt do a very good job because his case is specious at best, and I suspect that's the reason he left.He also seemes to be a one trick(issue) pony!I agree with this method of attack on people spouting hateful views because this forces these peopl out in the open and exposes them under the light of scrutiny.It`s a much better method than to legislatively "shut them up"....

[Michael Hardner]

It`s a much better method than to legislatively "shut them up"....

Agreed. Especially since a main tenet of their argument is always that they're being disallowed from speaking. It's tiring, but you have to counter their trick of posting something... then waiting a few days and coming back with a new post without adequately backing up the first post.

It's a technique that fails miserably in the thread format, as the departure of Lictor seems to support. We only have ourselves to thank for that.

[Shwa]

Argus says:

This is a story which was actually one of those responsible for some of the postings I made on this thread, and a perfect illustration of how the media self-censors in it's determination not to appear to be portraying any non-white group in a poor light...

The Toronto Star didn't censor themselves here, even though they did not portray the colour of the victims. Here the Star Phoenix has no problems identifying the suspects as "aboriginal." And CP24 has no compunction about identifying this "South Asian" man. They even have a picture showing his skin colour.

All of these stories do not portray the suspects in anything other than "poor light."

Edited April 6, 2010 by Shwa