Rush to Judgment, or The Death of Objective Journalism

alfadriver said:

To say that the kids are racists or they are innocent are BOTH wrong with the current data we have. 

What? Neither side is 100% right? I refuse to believe these sorts of situations ever exist. How can I choose which side to be on after the fact to be smugly righteous while I spout about how everyone else is clearly dumber than me if it isn't 100% clear which side is right and which side is wrong?

Back in the good ol' days when news was black and white everything was just so much easier...

alfadriver said:

The biggest problem with news is when it was forced to make money.

fitty thousand eleventy billion +++

I never had reason to believe Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley were lying to us or had not done actual research.  Now, the need for everything to go viral is killing the truth.         

Thank you, gentlemen, for keeping the discourse civil.  Can it be that we can touch on a touchy subject and discuss it at length without descending into a quagmire of backbiting?  Time will tell!

I will just throw this in before the likely lock. 

When thinking about news / conflicts / subjects, this is a phrase I like to use:

"As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between"

In reply to David S. Wallens :

And assume everything you see on TV or see/read online or where ever has been created with some level bias. Sometimes unintentional, but usually with intent. 

My main takeaway from the original OP article is that video can easily lie depending on how it is edited. Which while not a new concept to anyone, probably does bear repeating.

What's interesting is that NPR and PBS were funneled government dollars because TV and radio airtime was expensive, and there was a worry that commercial media would be too influenced by corporations and business to make truly unbiased, impartial, educational programs, news, TV or radio. 

Now we have so much media that is either influenced too heavily by private interests, or is driven solely by viewership. Nobody needs government funded news and educational programs because they've got Netflix or Youtube for whatever they want. 

If I'm a conservative who believes that NPR and PBS have a liberal agenda, I certainly don't want my tax dollars funding them, I'd sooner use that money to listen to Rush and Fox News all day long. Or, if I don't care about traditional network TV, nor do I have any interest in PBS/NPR, I'd sooner just get my "news" from YouTube or Twitter, then there again, why should I support PBS?

bobzilla said:

GameboyRMH said:

bobzilla said:

aircooled said:

Honestly, probably best not discuss the specifics of the noted incident, lest this go down the wrong road.

(for fairness, hopefully, from what I read they did not "show up at the rally" they were there waiting for a their bus to go home, there is no simple answer to this situation... kind of the whole point)

This. They were there for a Pro-Life rally, waiting on their buses to go home. They didn't "show up to an indigenous people's rally". They WERE the target of racist hate, shown in several other videos but I can already tell you don't care and have already made up your mind. 

I've only made up my mind that there's no way to show up to that rally in those hats and appear neutral or supportive of that protest. If they wanted to take a little detour from their pro-life rally to the indigenous people's rally, they should've put those hats in their pockets to avoid making a hostile statement.

there was no detour. But again, you've made up your mind these were terrible people. 

I don’t understand how someone can convince themselves that MAGA Hat = Racism.

The second “A” does indicate going back to something and there was more racism in the past so there is that but the power of government was less in the past, personal freedom was greater in the past, taxes were less in the past, etc., etc., etc.

There’s a nearly infinite number of things that were different in the past and yet some feel they have the authority to decide what MAGA Hat wearers want to have “A”gain and that thing, out of the universe of possibilities, just happens to be the most disgusting thing imaginable which is the exact same thing one would pick if they really just wanted to stifle opposing views (shock face).

I worked in the TV industry for years, pre and post internet and CNN.  Local and national news used to be the money makers for a station, short of only the most popular prime time shows for advertising rates.  That died out long ago with the advent of 24 hour news at your fingertips.  What has happened as these network and stations had to look at additional revenue streams they looked to entertainment shows as opposed to straight news cycles.  Calling them entertainment relieves them of having to conform to the "rules" news networks had to previously follow.  What you get now are supposed "experts" giving their opinion of the news.  These opinions and real news have been blurred into what we now have.  

Those kids only sin was accidentally being in the same place as a bunch of rabble rousing activists looking for someone to scapegoat the miserable failure of their lives.    They had the same right to wear MAGA hats as drum man had to parade around performing ridiculous antics.  He invaded their space, that made him the instigator, and a failed one at that since the boys were smart enough to not engage the guy with crazy eyes. 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/01/thomas-woods/the-truth-about-that-native-american-man-and-those-students/

pheller said:

What's interesting is that NPR and PBS were funneled government dollars because TV and radio airtime was expensive, and there was a worry that commercial media would be too influenced by corporations and business to make truly unbiased, impartial, educational programs, news, TV or radio. 

Now we have so much media that is either influenced too heavily by private interests, or is driven solely by viewership. Nobody needs government funded news and educational programs because they've got Netflix or Youtube for whatever they want. 

If I'm a conservative who believes that NPR and PBS have a liberal agenda, I certainly don't want my tax dollars funding them, I'd sooner use that money to listen to Rush and Fox News all day long. Or, if I don't care about traditional network TV, nor do I have any interest in PBS/NPR, I'd sooner just get my "news" from YouTube or Twitter, then there again, why should I support PBS?

Well, having some public funding does reduce the likelihood of corporate influence.  We still have that.  

And neither NPR nor PBS are going for hits (as far as I can tell) that Youtube encourages in terms of presentation, or need subscribers like Netflix does.

So there are reasons to support it.

If you think it has an agenda, you can get involved with PBS and NPR, too.  They are more welcome to input than most others- like a liberal calling Rush will never make the air.

BTW, MAGA may not be racist, but one has to at least admit that it's good at instigation of feelings.  Good or bad.  I know plenty of people who get really bothered by the MAGA hats, and what it has meant to them over the last 3 years.  Deny that all you want, but it's true.

RX Reven' said:

I don’t understand how someone can convince themselves that MAGA Hat = Racism.

The second “A” does indicate going back to something and there was more racism in the past so there is that but the power of government was less in the past, personal freedom was greater in the past, taxes were less in the past, etc., etc., etc.

There’s a nearly infinite number of things that were different in the past and yet some feel they have the authority to decide what MAGA Hat wearers want to have “A”gain and that thing, out of the universe of possibilities, just happens to be the most disgusting thing imaginable which is the exact same thing one would pick if they really just wanted to stifle opposing views (shock face).

I, on the other hand, don't see how anyone could convince themselves that a MAGA hat does not at least carry undertones of racism.

Even if you want to generously assume that "the second A" excludes certain things from the past, you have to consider the kinds of policies and rhetoric that goes along with that hat. It supports someone who has publicly and repeatedly made racist statements and not apologized for them and who pries at racial and political divides at every opportunity. This behavior goes well beyond the benefit of the doubt to me, and it's quite understandable to me that this behavior has been associated with that hat to a huge chunk of the population. So I for one think it would stretch credulity to try to compartmentalize away so much of the rhetoric, behavior, and policy that goes along with that hat.

aircooled said:

pheller said:

I would like to see FCC rules that require a subjective interpretation of the news labeled as such, both in print and media. This would also include cases where news agencies acquire viral media without context of the situations being filmed. 

 

Trying to encourage steering this back on track:

Yes, but there is still the issue of defining "objective".  This can be a bit tricky in some circumstances, especially in complicated situations (which most are) it can be very difficult to show all the objective information without making a story a 30 minute analysis.  And, you still have to weight that information for relevance / importance (which can be somewhat subjective).

Another problem over attempting to enforce objectivity: A news organization may do a good job at keeping their biases out of individual articles and cover stories objectively, but can have a bias influence what stories receive what amount of coverage. This is a tough sort of matter to watch for and enforce, and giving the government the authority to demand news outlets cover a story (or worse, demand they not cover a story) seems like a bit too much power.

Yes. Wear a hat and you deserve to get death threats and have lies created about you. 

I agree.  Lock it down. When we are so irrational that a hat denotes you as a racist we done jumped the shark as a society. Let it burn. 

bobzilla said:

Yes. Wear a hat and you deserve to get death threats and have lies created about you. 

I agree.  Lock it down. When we are so irrational that a hat denotes you as a racist we done jumped the shark as a society. Let it burn. 

It's clear that you've not been on the other end of some of the stuff that's been going on.  Just because YOU don't get any feelings over it does not mean others don't.

Heck, people who say that MAGA doesn't incite feelings are the same people who FEEL that things are really bad, when the facts say otherwise.  So it's interesting that feelings can be played on one side, but not the other....

Wearing a GRM hat prolly makes you Car-ist - A fossil fuel burning, earth hating, global warmer. Yup. Lock.

alfadriver said:

BTW, MAGA may not be racist, but one has to at least admit that it's good at instigation of feelings.  Good or bad.  I know plenty of people who get really bothered by the MAGA hats, and what it has meant to them over the last 3 years.  Deny that all you want, but it's true.

Who is to blame for the way that others see and react to you? You are in control of the image you put out there, and you are also in control of how you judge those you see.

Is assuming a character trait about somebody in a particular clothing item really different than any other stereotyping? If the videos showed a bunch of non-whites in baggy clothes, and grouped them all together as "thugs" or some other garbage term people would rightly be incensed. Because it's wrong to judge an entire segment of people based on appearance. Being racist is deplorable. Assuming anybody in a MAGA hat is a racist requires the same stereotyping that racism does.

STM317 said:

Because it's wrong to judge an entire segment of people based on appearance. Being racist is deplorable. Assuming anybody in a MAGA hat is a racist requires the same stereotyping that racism does.

You can't choose your skin, but you can choose your hat. And that hat has picked up some meanings, like it or not...

The public has some responsibility at this point (no real option any more really) to be HIGHLY suspicious of almost any "news" they hear.  The logic / reasoning of some people can be a bit sad.

I recently saw a HOT headline that noted how this fact HAD to be true because look at all the different new links that show the same information.... well.... they ALL where from the SAME original source.... yeah, that's not how that works.

Be very suspicious, do your best not to jump to conclusions, do your best to check it out yourself.

Yes, it is sad that we have to do that.

This hits the nail on the head. The media are salesmen, who are more than willing to sell their customers what they want to hear. They can make the shadiest used car salesman seem legit. You have the same responsibility to vet a news story as you do a used car on the lot. Believe it "was only driven to church on Sundays" at your own risk. 

The difference is that the customers keep coming back! Most people who get burned by a car lot would never go back, and they would tell everyone to stay away. Yet many media outlets get caught putting out false stories with little to no rebuke from their customers. 

I've always been a skeptical person, but I can tell you the exact moment the media lost me as a loyal customer. There was a national story that apparently the media didn't think was racially charged enough. So they edited the 911 tape that they played to make it appear racist. After that, I started playing closer attention, and realized that the first reports are more often wrong than not. I've learned to ignore breaking news, and to wait a day or two before the rest of the info gets out. Unfortunately, the breaking news often gets wall to wall coverage, while the clarification or retraction gets a blip. Not surprisingly, the incorrect breaking news often gets discussed and passed on by people long after the corrections came to light. 

While the purposeful misreporting is egregious, even the stories that are not intentionally skewed are often full of inaccuracies. I recently was on a jury for a case that had a fair amount of visibility. After the trial, I looked up the initial news reports and the ones that followed the trial. I was surprised how different some of the reporting was from what actually taken place.

Gentlemen!  Please.  Remember your civility.

In reply to STM317 :

So why do they wear the hat in the first place???  Why do they NEED to identify with that group of people? 

It's not an accident that people wear that hat.  And to 1) deny that it causes hard feelings and 2) accuse that on the person who has those feelings... wow.  

Look at just this thread- and accept that MAGA DOES incite people.  Is it that hard to just accept that?

It's just like the color orange and Ireland vs. Northern Ireland.  It actually means something.  Even if it's just a color and just a shirt.

If I walk into the Horseshoe wearing a t-shirt that says something about Ohio sucking, it's the fault of OSU fans for being mad?

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

That’s a good article. Thanks. 

GameboyRMH said:

STM317 said:

Because it's wrong to judge an entire segment of people based on appearance. Being racist is deplorable. Assuming anybody in a MAGA hat is a racist requires the same stereotyping that racism does.

You can't choose your skin, but you can choose your hat. And that hat has picked up some meanings, like it or not...

I agree. Totally valid point. But who is responsible for the meanings that the hat has picked up? Those who have acted in disgusting ways while wearing it are of course the root cause, but those who assume that anybody who wears it are only exhibiting the same types of stereotypical thinking. If people assume that anybody wearing a hijab or burqa is a terrorist, they're rightly rebuked, but it's ok to assume that anyone in a MAGA hat is a racist?

People choose to stand with the president of these United States.  His supporters were, and presumably are, sufficient in number to win the Presidential election.  The fact that the vocal minority who oppose him choose to vilify his supporters, or anyone who wears the slogan which he chose to use in his quest to attain the office, says more about them than the wearers of the hats.  I'd say it amounts to a big helping of sour grapes.