<p>Hey citation x history isn’t always fair. You have to see race relations within the CONTEXT of history. It is different when a black person says they want to exterminate… versus white doing the same. It’s a double standard. Deal with it.
You know, slavery, Jim Crow Laws, lynching. All the great things that the South fought for, make a difference. Therefore, shut up.</p>
<p>okay, so because the media didn’t jump all over a story about a jerk of a speaker, it is some giant llberal bias…</p>
<p>I can’t explain why Paris Hilton, a do nothing person gets so much coverage, but she does</p>
<p>I also can’t explain why newsworthy stories get ignored</p>
<p>And citationX, your list, well, you kind of ruin your own argument there</p>
<p>CITATION X,</p>
<p>Sadly, the US still doesn’t have a complete grip on how to handle race relations. If anything, we tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to minorities, giving them more leeway in (admittedly) silly things. </p>
<p>However, the fact remains that THIS STORY WAS NOT NEWSWORTHY. Sorry, but Americans are simply not apt to care much about the tirade of some VERY obscure professor. If this had been Denzel Washington, I can assure you that it would have been EVERYWHERE.</p>
<p>Whether we like it or not, newsworthy means selling ads and making money. It has much less to do with what’s important than with what’s sensational.</p>
<p>EXCUSE #5 “It is different when a black person says they want to exterminate… versus white doing the same. It’s a double standard. Deal with it. You know, slavery, Jim Crow Laws, lynching. All the great things that the South fought for, make a difference. Therefore, shut up.”</p>
<p>CITATION X,</p>
<p>So you don’t think that there’s even a minor profit motive involved here? I think it’s pretty hard to argue otherwise, but I’d like to hear your argument.</p>
<p>instead of listing excuses , how about countering them UH u cant</p>
<p>Profits drive it, however one cannnot say this is the case (by not covering it) that explains it</p>
<p>The networks cover many many stories that are not necessarily profit driven, some very boring political budgetary type issues. and a story like this with the video - would in fact probably spike up ratings anyways</p>
<p>In this case the profit motive issue might account for 10% of the non-coverage at best. No doubt there is clear left wing media bias with 90% of the major cable. broadcast, and print media in the United States - or simply the “'double standard” on the race issue itself some have alluded to in this thread - which some will consider justified and others may not</p>
<p>In the case of the 21 minute (time limited) evening news categories - with ABC and CBS for example - one might say such a story may not be sufficient to feature - however this cannot be said with NBC which has MSNBC and CNBC (minus business coverage) going all hours and weekends,</p>
<p>CNN has 2 cable broadcast channels with plenty of room to cover it</p>
<p>Fox News apparently did cover this story to some degree on the Brit Hume Report </p>
<p>Also add in CBS 60 MINUTES, NBC PRIME TIME, and ABC’S 20/20 - and there’s plenty of room</p>
<p>Then - where is the major print media? </p>
<p>I guarantee if a white professor spoke those words on C-span - it would be on every single new story that night. Yes it would be profitable as a story, but it would also fit into their ongoing basic theme of white oppression in america</p>
<p>The “excuses” ON THEIR FACE are absurd when applied to a situation where it is a white or Asian professor suggesting the extermination of blacks</p>
<p>That was the point - the double standard</p>
<p>However I sometimes presume rationality where none exists</p>
<p>I guess the new rule in journalism is: black professors can go on C-Span and call for the extermination of the white race and it will not be deemed a newsworthy event </p>
<p>For want of a better term one, might call this “misterflyers1997 rule”</p>
<p>After all, everyone knows “it is different when a black person says they want to exterminate whites”</p>
<p>Well yes it is different. Because black people never put white people in chains, therefore blacks saying they are going to exterminate whites is laughable. However, when a white person says it, it makes you think. The Tuskegee Experiment isn’t far from my mind.
just because you repeat what i said in quotes w/ a saracastic tone doesn’t imply a good argument on ur behalf</p>
<p>Years ago I had dinner with a UC professor who was close to retirement. He announced in a loud voice that AIDS was an expression of God’s wrath on homosexuals. I think he thought it was a witty comment, as opposed to a deeply-held belief. As other diners in the restaurant glared at us I changed the subject and life went on. Should I have viewed this as newsworthy? A professor making a dumb comment which evidenced bias against a particular group? Or should I have treated it as I did - as nothing but a cringe-worthy but insignificant comment made with the intent of being provocative, albeit in what I felt was an inappropriate manner?</p>
<p>The righties have a desperate need to insist that they are in the center and that everyone who doesn’t echo their blogspeak like a mindless parrot is demonstrating “liberal bias”. By that definition, of course the media are “biased” - any independent, rational thinking adult is “biased” by that standard. </p>
<p>The goofball in the clip was appropriately ignored. That is not bias - it’s rational behavior. Understandably, the right wing blogslaves can’t understand that.</p>
<p>I would assume that given the University system, in America, has become something of the repository, or ur-temple, of the secular faith (such as it is), any attack on a college professor is felt by the faithful as an attack on the body of the faith as such: an attack on secularism–very much like the raw feelings of the religious faithful are irritated by an attack on the individual acts of a priest, rabbi, mullah or guru.</p>
<p>In the eyes of the faithful, whether religious or secular, the truth of a particularly bad deed is often less important than it’s consequences for those who champion its general principals and being.</p>
<p>It is to be expected, I believe.</p>
<p>Let me add to the post above that what I said about the American University system is not at all true for the non-western university systems about the rest of the world. </p>
<p>I believe this would be clear to anyone educated outside of the West. This fight between a secular academic class and religious class is, I am led to believe, particularly unique to the West.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to hear people comment on this point.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>
That theme is no figment of their imagination. It exists, though in these latter days mostly as a result of the past. When a black guy calls for the extermination of whites, he does so in response to frustration caused by the current shape of things, in addition to legitimate fears about whites that result of it.</p>
<p>Because blacks have at no time in history enslaved massive numbers of whites and because they have never codified into law the unworthiness of whites to receive fundamental human rights, and because whites have done these things and more against blacks, when a white speaks of applying force against blacks it becomes news. Also, because of the past a great difference of power exists between the two groups so that a threat from one hardly means what it does when it comes from the other. It is the difference between an old holocaust survivor saying all Germans should be extinguished, and a young German politician saying all Jews should be exterminated. We will, of course, disagree with the old guy, but because his people have actually undergone severe abuse at the hands of the Germans, we will understand him. Moreover, since neither he nor Jews in general have ever done anything like what the Germans pulled off, and because the old man seems powerless to do it despite that he wants to, he is reduced to mere nutcase status and is therefore not nearly as newsworthy as the politician.</p>
<p>It is not just the “liberal media” that is basically treating this black guy as a non-issue. Most people are doing it. They are doing it because of the reasons I have described above. They sense this intuitively. I think to make a big deal about it, one has to do so deliberately, against the sensibility one feels naturally in such a case as this. One has to have some sort of an axe to grind to keep whining on and on about something that is so obviously a non-issue.</p>
<p>What are we looking for here–I and three other posters are supposed to raise our right hands and swear we’d be just as consistent if the nutcase were white? Because why, again? That would satisfy CITATION in some way? I’m confused.</p>
<p>FWIW, why is that so farfetched? Nutcase bigots are nutcase bigots, IMHO, no matter what their color–or the race/religion of the group they want to herd up and shoot/neuter/ship to another continent. And I don’t think any of it deserves a lot of media attention (although I’d probably applaud the bad press if the person was truly influentual and powerful, but not otherwise getting the derision well due him or her). </p>
<p>I don’t see how political views have a connection to this.</p>
<p>Actually, kluge, I think that you have it exactly backwards as it relates to which side of the political aisle believes that they are the “center”. Most conservatives I know, read, or observe pretty much proudly proclaim that they are on the “right”. Liberals though think that they are the “center” insisting that it’s really only the Noam Chomskys and Ward Churchills of the world who are on the left. All the other good little liberals are nothing but the “middle of the road” - or so they would have us believe.</p>
<p>As it relates to the subject at hand, rightly or wrongly it’s just the way that it is that blacks can say certain things about race that whites can’t. Witness Michael Irvin and his recent comments about Tony Romo of the Dallas Cowboys. If a white person (i.e. Jimmy the Greek, Rush Limbaugh) had said what he did, he would habve been banished. Irvin will get a slap on the wrist, if that.</p>
<p>For those who aren’t aware of his comments he basically said that quarterback Tony Romo - he of Italian descent - must have African ancestry because he has such amazing athletic skills. That suggestion goes against everything politically correct about race and athletic prowess.</p>
<p>
It doesn’t at all. I am not saying there is no liberal bias in the media. I think there is. But folk on the right seem to think there are all these sandal wearing liberals in the news rooms plotting how best to attack the right. I just don’t think anything like this is the case. For the most part, the media chases what they think is meaningful, what is this thing they call “news”, and they do it pretty indiscriminately, though I think they veer leftward because everything is subjective. But if they had some hard and fast liberal bias against whites and toward blacks, we sure would not see so much black crime and other sensationalist and depressing images of blacks in the “leftist” media. Were blacks not suffering any major problems, they would be quite ignored by the media.</p>
<p>I think it is too costly for any organization, other than CSPAN (which is a different matter), to cover every guy who calls for genocide in America. Plenty of right-wingers have done it. Plenty of them are infiltrating our military right now, to get weapons in preparation for a race war they are hoping for.
<a href=“http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=66[/url]”>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=66</a>
<a href=“http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?sid=21[/url]”>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?sid=21</a></p>
<p>But I don’t see the leftist media all over this. They aren’t all over it because the media, like most people, don’t think these nut jobs have what it takes to cut through the US military and move it in their direction. Half of these guys don’t even have a full set of teeth. But were they men of substance who were doing the same thing, the press would be everywhere on it. The same thing applies to this black nutcase.</p>
<p>The story here, for me, is how so many blacks think America is out to get them. It is just not a healthy situation.</p>
<p>“Black professors can go on C-Span and call for the extermination of the white race and it will not be deemed a newsworthy event” (aka “Misterflyers1997” rule)</p>
<p>At least The Left (for once) is making itself clear</p>
<p>It seems nonsensical and even a bit imbalanced to actually think that this "Misterflyers1997 rule caricature here represents The Left. This professor didnt go on CSPAN. He was giving a speech to what seemed to be about five people, and CSPAN covered it. It covered it presumably because the speech was supposed to be a response to the Katrina disaster. Apparently the black guy hijacked it to advocate genocide. No one cares because the guy is no one of any real consequence. Here we have white right-wingers actually going into the military to try taking it over so that they can go house to house murdering blacks <a href=“http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=66[/url]”>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=66</a>,
<a href=“http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?sid=21[/url]”>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?sid=21</a>, and yet there is hardly any press from the so-called liberal media.</p>
<p>Well, at least the right is making itself clear, as it has for many centuries now.</p>
<p>…and we’ve had holocaust deniers, Nazi-admirers and white supremacists on university faculty for years - including the guy who wrote “the Turner Diaries” which was reportedly Timothy McVeigh’s inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing. Somehow the "liberal media’ have managed to ignore those non-stories except as background for real news. Are there crackpots out there? Duh. Is it news? Uh…no.</p>
<p>Browninfall:
Brownie, speaking for my fellow “good little liberals” - and being treated to a healthy dose of smug contempt from a tone-deaf righty just makes my day, by the way [/sarcasm] - are you completely oblivious to the fact that your premise is based on your own, personal assessment as to where “the center” is - and that you have no objective basis for claiming it’s to the right of where those “good little liberals” believe it to be other than your own sense of personal omniscience? Socialists will acknowledge being “on the left”. Ultra conservatives will admit being “on the right”. It’s the big grey area in between that’s the battle ground for the definition of “the center.” Someone you call a “good little liberal” would be viewed as a conservative in many communities. (Been there.) I’ve got a strong suspiscion that you’d draw that line further to the right than I would - and you’ve got no real objective basis for doing so.</p>