Bet You Didn't See This On The News

inmytree

RainDog wrote:

No, not necessarily. I can't copy and paste from snopes, for some reason, but the bottom of the page offers some insight (so I'll type it up):

"Some commentators have made much of the fact that the buld of the news reportage about the murders has been local, while the case has received little or no national coverage by major news outlets - a phenomenon attributed to the supposedly biased news media loath to report black on white crime.

However, the notion that every major news outlet in the U.S. (all of them competitive, profit-making businesses) has conspired to ignore what would otherwise be a compelling national story is rather implausible. A more rational explanation might be found in the sober observation that murders - even decidedly horrific murders - are unfortunately too frequent an occurrence in the U.S. for all of them to garner national attention. <<snip>>

And, of course, the fact that the victims were white and the (presumed) killer black didn't stop the O.J. Simpson murder trial from becoming the most media-covered event in the history of jurisprudence."

In other words, just because the Duke case was a load of crap doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy to cover this one up. Was there even evidence, beyond the actual skin colors of the individuals involved, that this was a racially motivated crime - or was it just evil?

Yeah, I read that...and I think scopes does a good job of hashing out fact from fiction....but I have to disagree with the notion that this sort of crime is "common" thus not a major news story...

I think the point raised in the original email, which was pointing a fingers at big al and rainbow jessie for ingoring this crime, which may or may not have had racial undertones, is that al and jess are ambulance chasers, using tragedy for there own gain...

josevolution

NMyTree wrote:

Oh, I'm not defending anyone here, just stating a fact.

Believe me, I am very much in the camp that is sick of all this overly-PC and biased crap!

And don't get me started on those parasitical worms.....Sharpton and Jackson!

yeah me too ........

inmytree

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Whenever I hear a case of phedophiles I understand the rage you experienced....it is tough believing in your own morality sometimes therefore the questioning of it is very important.

oh no, don't get me started on pedophiles and my thoughts on how they should be treated...

you'd think I was one sick bastard...

which may have some merit...;)

jeffbr

RainDog wrote:

In other words, just because the Duke case was a load of crap doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy to cover this one up. Was there even evidence, beyond the actual skin colors of the individuals involved, that this was a racially motivated crime - or was it just evil?

Good points, but that's the beauty of playing the 'hate crime' or 'race' card. No evidence needed. The Snopes mention of OJ was tangential - his celebrity transcended any issues of race in terms of news coverage.

RainDog

inmytree wrote:

Yeah, I read that...and I think scopes does a good job of hashing out fact from fiction....but I have to disagree with the notion that this sort of crime is "common" thus not a major news story...

I think the point raised in the original email, which was pointing a fingers at big al and rainbow jessie for ingoring this crime, which may or may not have had racial undertones, is that al and jess are ambulance chasers, using tragedy for there own gain...

Yes, but the e-mail is a bit - disingenuous, to use everyone's new favorite word (thanks McCain! ). It seeks to "level the playing field" as if white criminals would normally be treated unfairly under the law - and that these black criminals will somehow get off easy. Anyone who's ever looked at incarceration and death penalty statistics should know that that's bullshit.

I believe the sole purpose of e-mails like this are to shout "hey! look at teh eeevil black people" and that Al and Jesse were just thrown in there as easy targets.

Uncle Leo

There is no getting around that this would have been big news if you revesed the races on this. Therefore, it is an obvious double standard.

(regardless of race, I don't think this should be huge national news, but I digress).

Now in general, I'd rather be a white perpetrator with a black victim, because the justice system would probably treat me better. (Actually the best thing to be would be a rich perpetrator, like OJ). And there is more advantage to your treatment from the justice system than a double standard. In this case, however, regardless of race, these people will never see the light of day again, due to the gruesome nature...

RainDog

jeffbr wrote:

Good points, but that's the beauty of playing the 'hate crime' or 'race' card. No evidence needed. The Snopes mention of OJ was tangential - his celebrity transcended any issues of race in terms of news coverage.

Yes, and the same could be said of the Duke and Imus cases - celebrity transcends all. And, while I waiver back and forth on the hate crime issue, I do believe evidence is necessary - however circumstantial - for it to be applied above the standard charge.

Uncle Leo

RainDog wrote:

Yes, but the e-mail is a bit - disingenuous, to use everyone's new favorite word (thanks McCain! ). It seeks to "level the playing field" as if white criminals would normally be treated unfairly under the law - and that these black criminals will somehow get off easy. Anyone who's ever looked at incarceration and death penalty statistics should know that that's bullshit.

I believe the sole purpose of e-mails like this are to shout "hey! look at teh eeevil black people" and that Al and Jesse were just thrown in there as easy targets.

Some of this is kind of what i was getting at...I hope this does not lead people to think "no media coverate, double standards, therefore the 'PC' justice system will let them off easy." That's not the way it works. The double standard is simply about media coverage. Are we too PC to villianize these people because their black? Are we too stuck in the past to not recognized that a hate crime can go "either way"? Whatever the case, the white-operated media (taking its cues from a still predominatly white America) has decided what to cover.

Uncle Leo

jeffbr wrote:

Good points, but that's the beauty of playing the 'hate crime' or 'race' card. No evidence needed. The Snopes mention of OJ was tangential - his celebrity transcended any issues of race in terms of news coverage.

In other words, the media did cover a "black on white" crime, but it does not count?

PaperPlates

The media has no vested interest in reporting crimes where the victim is white and the perps are black. It doesnt fit into any of their agendas, nor does it help any of their causes or interests. If this had been 5 white guys who did this to a young black couple, or a young gay couple, it'd be a media circus. Our media truly is dogshit.

jeffbr

Uncle Leo wrote:

In other words, the media did cover a "black on white" crime, but it does not count?

In other words, the same words I said before. I agree with Rain Dog that Imus and OJ were celebrities and were going to get coverage regardless. I disagree with him that the Duke players were celebrities ( I couldn't have named a Duke lacrosse player before this incident).

But if you want to join the revs in playing the race card, too, that's your prerogative.

even flow?

josevolution wrote:

i agree but when was the last time you read about 5 white guys and 1 white girl commiting a crime like this on 2 black young people ,i don't remember ever reading about .....

May not have raped her or cut her penis off, but the rest stacks up. Just have to read the news.http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/virk/

Aside from raping that black guy a while ago in the south, didn't they chain him to the back of a car and drag him around. Good ole boys!

Uncle Leo

PaperPlates wrote:

The media has no vested interest in reporting crimes where the victim is white and the perps are black. It doesnt fit into any of their agendas, nor does it help any of their causes or interests. If this had been 5 white guys who did this to a young black couple, or a young gay couple, it'd be a media circus. Our media truly is dogshit.

What are their agendas, causes and interests? To demonize white people?

I think that they don't feel this would create enough of a stir (which is "our" fault as much as "theirs") or they have a fear of the PC Police. I think it's the former, as I do not think this gets reported if it is "white on white." I think, as pertaining to what horrific crimes they show (not to be confused the the war crimes they bury while talking about Imus and Paris), it's all about ratings.

At the risk of putting words in your mouth (because maybe I misinterpret your point), I don't think the media is part of some anti-white / pro-black conspiracy.

PaperPlates

Uncle Leo wrote:

What are their agendas, causes and interests? To demonize white people?

I think that they don't feel this would create enough of a stir (which is "our" fault as much as "theirs") or they have a fear of the PC Police. I think it's the former, as I do not think this gets reported if it is "white on white." I think, as pertaining to what horrific crimes they show (not to be confused the the war crimes they bury while talking about Imus and Paris), it's all about ratings.

At the risk of putting words in your mouth (because maybe I misinterpret your point), I don't think the media is part of some anti-white / pro-black conspiracy.

Not to demonize whites, but, to victimize anyone not white. Its not as much about being "anti white" to me as it seems to be "pro gay", "pro minority". Why is it so easy for some to think there's media bias/agenda concerning the war, concerning the president, but not this?

Uncle Leo

jeffbr wrote:

In other words, the same words I said before. I agree with Rain Dog that Imus and OJ were celebrities and were going to get coverage regardless. I disagree with him that the Duke players were celebrities ( I couldn't have named a Duke lacrosse player before this incident).

But if you want to join the revs in playing the race card, too, that's your prerogative.

You obviously did not read all of my posts, which acknowledged the double standard. In fact, I'll go a step farther and say that Imus was NOT about celebrity, but entirely about race. Shock jocks say all sorts of stupid shit. And I essentially agree that OJ's celebrity was the reason that murder was coverd outside of its local. But if you're in an urban area, watch your local news for a while, you'll see some unknown blacks covered.

As for the race card, the only way I can play it is to say though all of this little fighting back from white America, I am certainly not thinking I'd have been better off being born black.

Uncle Leo

PaperPlates wrote:

Not to demonize whites, but, to victimize anyone not white. Its not as much about being "anti white" to me as it seems to be "pro gay", "pro minority". Why is it so easy for some to think there's media bias/agenda concerning the war, concerning the president, but not this?

Pro gay? In other words, you think the Matthew Sheppard murder was covered because he was gay? Well, it was. But that is not about trying to be pro-gay. That's about coverage of something that will be interesting to people. It was pretty recent that it was tottally OK to mistreat gays. Whatever role the media played in helping change that for the better is fine by me. But next time a group of gays murders a straight person, hurling slurs of "non-fag", I am sure the pro-gay media will not cover it.

As for "pro-minority," the most important media people (Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly) certainly are not. As for the rest of the media? I think it's more a case of political correctness than "pro minority." I think they're scarred of getting a negative reaction to the commentary of talking about all these horrible evil blacks killing these two whites. I don't think they have an agenda to make it better for minorities. In fact, their own sensationalism is better served if things do not get better for minoriteis.

josevolution

even flow? wrote:

May not have raped her or cut her penis off, but the rest stacks up. Just have to read the news.http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/virk/

Aside from raping that black guy a while ago in the south, didn't they chain him to the back of a car and drag him around. Good ole boys!

so where is the story of 5 white guys and 1 white girl doing that to a young black couple did i miss something .......i meant the same crime

somebodyelsessky2020

I WANT these suns a bitches peeled with a potato peeler then dipped in salt let sit for 1 hour. then egg washed & dipped in flour and deep fried in a giant vat of boiling hot crisco and then shipped to the heart of an african jungle inside a giant red and white striped bucket labled kentucky fried shit and then dumped by helicopter for the wild animals to eat. i would like to see this all televised for the entire world to see. because jail isn't enough payback for these creatures.

Abuskedti

Al Sharpton? It is sad you'd parade these criminals around to represent those that Al Shapton represents. You welcome the large contingent of haters and racists to swim and feed.

callen

somebodyelse'ssky wrote:

I WANT these suns a bitches peeled with a potato peeler then dipped in salt let sit for 1 hour. then egg washed & dipped in flour and deep fried in a giant vat of boiling hot crisco and then shipped to the heart of an african jungle inside a giant red and white striped bucket labled kentucky fried shit and then dumped by helicopter for the wild animals to eat. i would like to see this all televised for the entire world to see. because jail isn't enough payback for these creatures.

your just like them...freakin ironic isn't it.