Man rushes 5-year-old boy playing outside, and executes him.

[printcraft]

Hough, what conclusions can we draw from 2 above posts from KLB and Jamil?
They are noticing the obvious bias and commenting on it.
So what is the “conclusion” you are referring to?
For the record I agree with KLB and Jamil here.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't think that this was necessarily related to the racial violence going on. I doubt the sanity of the shooter. It's reported that he's been on drugs and has hallucinations. I haven't seen any evidence that it's racially motivated. Under normal circumstances (well, what would have been "normal" 20 years ago) if the media reported on this story at all, it would just have been newsworthy because of the event itself. That really should be the story's only value, that a man who was apparently mentally ill murdered a child in front of his siblings. Maybe that makes the national news. But now, depending on which races are involved, that story is either broadcast in wall to wall 24/7 coverage for a week, or it isn't.

Is there an equivalent case of a white guy killing a black kid that was broadcast wall to wall? That would be an interesting case study.

If there was, I understand that point. However, if there wasn't a case with very similar facts, we can't assume that some narrative issue resulted in "under reporting". Further, I don't even think there was "under" reporting.

 

[jamil]

Is there an equivalent case of a white guy killing a black kid that was broadcast wall to wall? That would be an interesting case study.

If there was, I understand that point. However, if there wasn't a case with very similar facts, we can't assume that some narrative issue resulted in "under reporting". Further, I don't even think there was "under" reporting.

How similar must it be? That specificity seems like an arbitrary requirement. It only needs to be "someone from race x did such and such to someone from race y because they're racists"

But anyway, if the media got hold of such a story I think they'd broadcast at least for as long as it were click-bait worthy. Media has been segregated into tribes like about all the other social aspects. The people on the left are going to eat up stories which they can consume a righteous indulgence of confirmation and indignation. That sells ads. The right leaning media is playing up this story for the same reason. It's "newsworthyness" is that conflict between races is relevant.

So if you want to talk about how the left media has overblown stories about race, how about the Trayvon Martin incident? There's no notable national newsworthiness in that story. They made it a racial issue. And they got lots of play out of it. Michael Brown. Same thing. It wasn't a racial incident. A person who happened to be black robbed a store, was found by police, and attempted to kill the officer. That kind of stuff happens often enough, but the media latched onto that, uncritically reporting the "hands-up-don't-shoot" narrative because that's news gold. I could go on, but you get the point. Right wing media is a bit different in how they get their clicks. Their bread and butter is conspiracy ****. But they'll get into race too when it sells to their audience.

 

[HoughMade]

If you want to talk about the media making stories race-based without objective evidence that race was a predominant factor in what happened, I'm with you.

the Cannon Hinnant story does not inform that issue in the least.

 

[KLB]

So reading and watching the boob tube brings out the crazies in todays rapid social media society?
I'm not so sure about that, so many were locked away with the State or private hospitals long before they were adults.

If you want to talk about the media making stories race-based without objective evidence that race was a predominant factor in what happened, I'm with you.

the Cannon Hinnant story does not inform that issue in the least.

That is exactly the issue. If there is a story where one side is of a particular race and the other is another, the media will portray it as racist and the side of one race will be the bad guy.

You can see it in headlines all the time. The race is generally only mentioned when it fits a certain narrative, including in this story. I could not find one article that included race. The only site I saw that did was Snopes.

 

[JTScribe]

Let's be honest, everyone realizes that the media colors their coverage.

So much so that SNL spoofed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGqtZmShIkw

 

[hoosierdoc]

If you want to talk about the media making stories race-based without objective evidence that race was a predominant factor in what happened, I'm with you.

the Cannon Hinnant story does not inform that issue in the least.

it's not like thr kid called the cops because he was threatening the kid's dog in a park. THEN we'd have a national news story

 

[jamil]

If you want to talk about the media making stories race-based without objective evidence that race was a predominant factor in what happened, I'm with you.

the Cannon Hinnant story does not inform that issue in the least.

Yes. That's what I'm talking about. But the impact of that goes deeper than what I think you're willing to go. The newsworthyness of the Cannon Hinnant story should be mostly of local relevance. I'll get to the "mostly" part later. It's just not newsworthy on a national level, unless there's an underlying context where race is important. The national news is right not to cover it unless it were obvious that race was a factor in it. And that's not evident. There's a necessary "however" clause in there that needs addressed though.

I'm pretty confident from the past couple of decades at least, of the media inserting racial factors in narratives where race wasn't the relevant factor, that if it were reversed, the usual media outlets would have picked this up and pounded the narrative that the man shot the kid because of race. The problem with that is that this constant narrative makes it appear that racism is much worse than it is. People who don't think more critically of what they hear on the news see the imbalance and think that's representative of the balance in real life. People think that there's more racism than there is and they think that it's all one-sided. There's nothing in front of uncritical American boob-tubers that informs them that racism isn't like it was in the 1950s, and that the racists remaining come in all colors, not just white.

So that brings us to the "mostly" of local relevance. There is an aspect that makes this story of national importance. Because the media tells the "America is deeply racist against 'people of color'" story every day, it's worth telling the story of Cannon Hinnant where the context is fully disclosed including that black people and white people can commit violence against the opposite race for reasons other than race. There's no need for black people to defend the guy who did this, with the usual claim that he's justified because of all the injustices done to black people. There's no defense, nor should there be one sought. When there is violence between races, sometimes race is the primary cause and maybe there is a national relevance to that. For example, the man in Portland who's head was nearly soccer-kicked off his shoulders. But it shouldn't be the default assumption. Just because violence happens between races doesn't mean race must have been the factor. I think it's fair that we want to talk about that. No one needs to be scolded for talking about it. If there were a nationally broadcasted honest, good faith, discussion about this story in that context, it would be nationally relevant. But we can't have nice things because America must be seen from a very narrow perspective that it is deeply racist.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[churchmouse]

No. It just lets you learn about things you never heard about in the past.


This is exactly the point. If it can be sensationalized and fits a narrative, it will make the news 24x7.

This country is a safer place to live than it was 40 years ago. Sadly, it is not portrayed that way.

As to this being a safer place.........I remember 40 years ago very vividly. Things were rough but focused in different ways. No we did not have Antifa but we had Watts and other such things.
Never heard about any home invasions at the level we have now and the outcomes these days are far more deadly. I could walk freely about anywhere with little fear but not today. No I dont think everyone is a mugger rapist or thief just a few here and there. People are way more off their rockers these days. Way more.

Screw statistics. The drug sub culture is as insane as anything I have ever witnessed and I have seen a lot.

 

[jamil]

I lived in the country growing up, a few miles from the city. My school district shared boundaries with the "inner city" part of town. I was the minority (60/40 black vs white). Let's just say it wasn't always safe. The city had maybe 40K people. So fairly small. It was mostly safe everywhere else I was then. I didn't see the kind of violence that was happening at the time with all the far left and anti-war stuff going on, but probably because of the proximity of the culture war then. We didn't see that in rural areas. Alphabet terrorist groups popped up all the time with "Liberation" somewhere in the name, claiming responsibility for the last building they blew up. That's what I remember seeing on the news.

It's not like that now. We don't have far left terrorist groups blowing up buildings now. I think they've learned to mainstream their radical ideas to get people on board with the violence. I do think the "revolution" going on now is not as violent as it was then but it is more intense, especially in the numbers of people that are supporting this. Back then sane people far outnumbered the radicals. Today it's hard to tell. So I'd say in some ways it was more violent then compared to now. And I do think it's safer now than then to go about your business, but that depends on where you are. Anywhere I need to go is safer to go, with a few minor exceptions.

So I guess what I"m saying is that your perception of "safety" is retaliative to the world you actually experience. It's a matter of experience and proximity strongly affects your perception of how bad off you are. I think fewer people were more willing to be extremely violent then. Their tactics were often to set off a bomb in some prominent building, and then claim credit for it. Now, with the minions indoctrinated through "critical studies" courses, it's mass rioting. It feels less safe now for the people who have that proximity, even though people were statistically less safe then. You're statistically 20% likely to have violence done to you. And then over time that decreases to 1%, if you're in the 1% who experiences it, it sure doesn't feel safer to you.

 

[jamil]

Are things starting to go off the rails? It doesn't seem so to me, but this is usually the indicator that it is.

 

[churchmouse]

Are things starting to go off the rails? It doesn't seem so to me, but this is usually the indicator that it is.

Actually no. I find this most interesting discussion. And it was a test of the early warning system.
This was only a test.....

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Actually no. I find this most interesting discussion. And it was a test of the early warning system.
This was only a test.....

Had this been an actual emergency, the would have been followed by official or .
We now return you to your regular program, which is already in progress.

 

[jamil]