Why is big media ignoring two black teens killing a Pakistani man?

If you expect answers, you need to learn how to quote a person. You quoted only me saying, "(Who am I?):" Do you see those two dots, at the end of your quote? Do you know what they're called? More importantly, do you know what it means? You never end a quote with a colon, because a colon means that what is about to follow, explains (or gives more details about) what came before the colon. Even if you couldn't figure it out-- and THAT'S the thing that is, "just SO telling"(a reference to your previous reply to me, if you're having trouble keeping up)-- you should include it so that your comments will not seem as much like gibberish to anyone else who's reading the thread. You so remove my comments from their context, even I am sometimes unsure of what I'd been talking about.

The expectation you quoted was my explaining to you, the ideas being represented in the news story about the woman-- in an attempt to get her neighbor to stop filming her w/ his phone, taking her dog off its leash in a dog-walking area with signs posted that say to keep your dog on its leash-- threatening to tell the police that a BLACK man is threatening her, & then calling 911, & actually doing it. This was clearly based on the expectation that police might treat a, "threatening," black man in such a way as that black man would wish to avoid. If the point you wish to make is that it is due to media propaganda that anyone has this expectation, you saw that, though I think this is a ridiculous contention, I did guess that was your view, in my reply. So why ask this imbecilic question? Do you really have no idea of other sources for this information, other than media spin? Like, maybe, the testimony of the black community, nationally-- including the words of former President Barack Obama? It's all a big lie, & black people, in general, are all part of it, huh? Get a clue.

Again, you short-quoted me; so I'll short-answer you: take a guess (btw, notice the colon).

Oh, I didn't realize I was conversing with a psychologist? Or a psychiatrist? Or someone with absolutely no expertise in the field & no basis for his psychological speculations? And you mock me for trusting, to a degree, MSNBC, but expect it would be sensible for me to give weight to your wild theory?

 

This isn't a gun thread, Chris. I just threw that acknowledgement in, of something that moved my impression of where the country, in whole or part, would place the line of acceptable deaths, away from my earlier estimate, for you, & at least more in the direction of your estimate. End of subject.

 

It is broadcast live, here.

 

Alright, fair enough. What did you mean by the bolded part in "(Who am I?): What perceived police bias?"

Yes, systemic racism IS all a big lie! Obama was FAR from a truth teller!

No I didn't. I quoted that reply section in full. You talked about "racial biases" which "exist in the population", but you didn't specify.

If you think that the stupid woman was most likely a vicious, brutal, evil white supremacist, then okay, but I don't. There's ZERO evidence for it, and all signs point to her being a typical New York white liberal, given what she said in her apology.

 

You definitely didn't just follow it prior to the defence starting? At the very least, you must have missed the crucial day of the defence where a bunch
of stuff came out. You should watch that video if you haven't already. It shows some, if not all of the reasonable doubt which was revealed that day.

 

I don't know how you could be SO off the mark, unless it is on purpose. Did you not notice I emboldened the part of your reply which diagnosed the woman as mentally ill? And then my asking, sarcastically, about your credentials, whether you were a psychologist, psychiatrist, or someone w/ no expertise whatsoever, in the field? I didn't mean the field of identifying NY liberals.

And I wasn't suggesting, fyi, that she was an evil white supremacist (though she was acting rather evilly, in that video).

 

In answer, I can just re-post my original comment about the trial:

I never claimed to be closely following the trial; nevertheless, I think I got enough of a taste upon which to base an opinion, under the circumstances (that the video is going to be the primary piece of evidence). If there is evidence that you think will persuasively create reasonable doubt, after all the prosecution witness testimony, by all means, I'll ask a second time, tell me what that is. And yes, I did stop watching before the defense began its case.

 

To demonstrate media bias.

Well you either think that the MAGA kids story was a more newsworthy story than the one in this thread, or you do not! So which is it?

 

It's strange that you you think that I haven't mentioned evidence that I think "will persuasively create reasonable doubt", even though you quoted this from my last post, even going as far as to underline part of it: You should watch that video if you haven't already. It shows some, if not all of the reasonable doubt which was revealed that day.

So you formed your opinion on the prosecution case alone? I gotta tell you, that surprises me. I really thought that you were too intelligent for that. I mean seriously, I see you as one of the more intelligent people in this place! So I'm frankly very disappointed!

 

Did you notice that part of what you emboldened is this: "There's a GOOD CHANCE that she was mentally ill?"

Exactly which part of that "diagnosed the woman as mentally ill?"

Are you at least suggesting that she is a racist?

 

Yeah, tell me about it. Teens being disrespectful really deserves NATIONAL attention!

 

As I have explained before, with me, my thoughts are not confined to momentary bursts, but tend to link in longer thoughts that run through my reply, or even between multiple replies; so the 1st thing to do, if you get thrown by something, is to retrace the conversation & consider the flow of thoughts.

In your reply, which preceded the response which you now question, you quote me as saying,
"This is a public interest story that, as I said, demonstrates this woman's impression of the NYPD-- which matches the expectation of much of the story's audience--"

and addressed that quote in what has become a familiar formula, by asking:

What "expectation?"
____________________________
The next quote of mine was,
"thereby using her attitude as a proxy for the public, at least in NYC; the noteworthy part of it being that most would not use that police bias purposely against a black man who they knew presented no danger, but just out of spite."

After which, you injected:

Perceived police bias.
_______________________________
So, in my reply, I quoted your, "Perceived police bias,"

which really didn't need further explaining, but in a parody of certain someone's persistent pattern, I asked:

(Who am I?): What perceived police bias?

In other words, by my taking your phrase & simply abutting its front with the word, "what," who did my question remind you of? The answer is that I had prepared that question, a la Chris: it was meant to show me as imitating you.

So it was only a gentle ribbing, a little joke that had fallen flat, which you have now compelled me to explain. I hope you can sleep better, now.

 

Well that's not what you originally asked me, which story do I think is more deserving of coverage. You asked:

chris155au said: ↑
Are you actually trying your best to say that it was a more newsworthy story than the one in this thread?
<End Snip>
And the answer was that I had not been trying to do anything of the kind, and was curious where you would have gotten such an idea.

Neither is a story of major importance, but that doesn't mean they are not worth reporting. As I'm sure I've mentioned, news is also entertainment. What Sunday newspaper doesn't have the Funnies (comic strips)? As well as a crossword puzzle, Dear Abbey (advice columnist), my local paper has an Ask the Doctor type column, as well as a chess column. And let's not forget about travel sections, even Sports is not really IMPORTANT, "news."

So, as I said before, they are editorial decisions; it can't really be said, objectively, whether they should be included, or which one is more important. I mean, should the Sunday Funnies include Beetle Bailey, or Hi & Lois, or both? What about Blondie, or Andy Capp? It's a matter of preference.

I remember news making a big deal, a few years back, of some kid who was trapped after falling into a well, clear across the country from me. Why should I spend time watching that? But many people love that kind of live drama. It's entertaining, for them.

The two stories you are talking about are more relevant than the kid in the well. I explained how effectively the dog-walking/911 story illustrated public belief about police racism, regardless if you think the woman was mistaken or not; she is far from alone in her perception. I never read her apology letter, but now I'm getting curious as to what she might have said.

It is actually the detail which I'd either not focused on, or forgotten, about the other story that provides its editorial force. I only remembered it as a story of privileged kids, from some exclusive school, who had no appreciation or respect for traditions that were foreign to them. But when one adds in the Make America Great Again hat, and consider that it was an old, Native American, drumming & chanting in a, presumably, traditional style, it crystallizes the ugly ironies, of this, "American pride," being also a source of belittlement of other cultures & people which seem foreign, even when they descend from the original Americans. The way those kids mocked the man, now makes it hard for me not to consider a comparison to the way some of the first Europeans, in North America, regarded the native inhabitants.

I really don't see what was so wrong about national media covering either of these stories.

 

"There's a good chance you have a stomach ulcer," is a medical opinion; it's even truer when we move to psychological diagnoses, which can't be confirmed or ruled out with blood tests, or breath tests, or biopsies, or endoscopies, or ultrasound scans.

Here is what you quoted from me, for your question:

"And I wasn't suggesting, fyi, that she was an evil white supremacist (though she was acting rather evilly, in that video)."

"Evil white supremacist," was your terminology, which was a ridiculous thing to assume I must be saying, if I didn't agree with your pre-diagnosis of the woman as suffering from mental illness. I certainly would never try to judge whether or not someone was, "a racist," based on such a brief excerpt of their life. I have no way of knowing how typical that is of behavior, or how bad of a day she'd been having, before the video. Notice that the aspect of the description that I comment upon, indicating there is at least more of a basis for the conclusion, is the evil part; that was a pretty shetty thing for her to do.

 

Was I giving a medical opinion as a medical expert? Did you watch the video? She seems to be having an anxiety attack.

You got it! That silly woman is probably a typical New York white liberal who believes that cops are out to kill black people, and in a desperate move, decided to use it against this black man.

 

Why is that relevant unless you think that the MAGA kids story was reported for it's entertainment value?

What did they do exactly which showed a lack of appreciation or respect for traditions that were foreign to them?

How the hell did they mock him? You actually do not know what happened! If they actually did what you THINK they did, it would've justified the story, and maybe CNN wouldn't have settled the law suit!

 

They are good sources of news from a left wing angle, driving a left wing narrative. That's not objective journalism.

Oh yes, the Pulitzer Prize, which was awarded to the FRAUDULENT Nicole Hannah Jones for her piece of absolute FICTION, The 1619 Project! I'm going to take the Pulitzer Prize SUPER seriously!

 

1) WHAT did I quote, from your last post, & what part did I underline? You did not reproduce whatever text you are referring to.

2) So, I must also ask, to WHAT VIDEO are you referring?

3) BTW, the colon in your quote is being misused. A plain old period would probably have been the best choice, there.

Part of intelligence is learning not to waste time & effort. One cannot be aware of, monitor, learn about all things, simultaneously. When we choose to do one thing, therefore, we are also choosing not to do other things, at that time. I think I'd seen enough, as I said. It is not so crucial to my life that I need to linger over every moment of the trial. It is no special advantage, I gain, should I be able to correctly pick the ultimate verdict. There is no way I can affect the verdict. And there is no way anyone can be certain of what it will be, until it is read, which will be soon enough. So what advantage is there in further scrutiny? It is ENTERTAINMENT, that I don't find particularly entertaining. Besides, I doubt that my opinion would change much, even if I did watch every minute of the trial. I am highly confident in a manslaughter conviction. I'm roughly 60% confident in a 3rd degree murder conviction. I don't know all the criteria for a Murder-2, conviction, but I am rather more doubtful of that. If that was something I had a keen interest in gauging, I would need to spend more time on the trial. But I think that a 3rd degree murder conviction would still be considered a victory; as long as Chauvin doesn't walk free, I think most will accept the verdict with only some griping over it.

And your opinion, from paying close attention to every moment, is what, that acquittal is the most likely result?

 

As demonstrated by articles such as this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...10ccde-97d5-11eb-962b-78c1d8228819_story.html

 

An, "anxiety attack," I'm guessing, if it is a specific, psychological condition, is not merely feeling anxious; no doubt marked by certain criteria more specific than merely seeming frazzled, angry, & uptight. What are those tell-tale signs? If you don't know, either, than you are illegitimately offering a diagnosis-- you used the words mentally ill-- I don't know why you can't grasp that, or refuse to admit it, but I am beyond caring anymore, at this point.

 

I am not going to read Wapo's opinion piece, on the trial. I don't see how that could possibly discredit their reputation for journalistic excellence. That is not something that is affected by where a publication sits on any ideological spectrum, btw. You tell me, what's so bad about the article, if you want me to know.

 

Opinion piece? You realise that it's from their Editorial Board, right?

 

You know what the word, "editorial," means, right?

 

Opinion?

 

MOVED: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...er-trial-is-on.586164/page-83#post-1072569468