Blacks commit 'bias' crimes against Mexicans in NYC

[Ignignokt]

The Duke Lacrosse case. need i say more...

[Spurminator]

i'm having a hard time here trying to determine if the spin being built here is that the media is pro-black, anti-mexican or anti-white ?

Basically, the third one.

I freely acknowledge the media is PC, and it's more sensationalist (and I guess better for business) to over-racialize white crimes against minorities than minority-on-minority or minority-on-white. I don't know why, but I also don't feel like it's an attack on me as a white non-criminal. The fact that this article did not use the word "race" really doesn't leave anything about the story uncertain. I don't feel like they're hiding something. At worst, you have a situation where editors chose their words a little too carefully.

I just question the motivation for getting worked up about this stuff. It's like when you hear a white person say, "Black people call each other '######' all the time, so why is it so bad when white people say it?" I mean, do you want to say it? Do you feel you're being repressed somehow because it's socially unacceptable for you to say "######?"

So what's the problem here? Are you afraid blacks are going to be allowed to go genocidal while the media ignores it?

[rjv]

Neither of those descriptions are accurate and you're presenting a false dilemna.

i'm presenting sarcasm and you're presenting both hyperbole and an inability to differentiate between argument and an off the cuff remark. unless, you somehow see sardonic observations as syllogisms.

[Ignignokt]

Basically, the third one.

I freely acknowledge the media is PC, and it's more sensationalist (and I guess better for business) to over-racialize white crimes against minorities than minority-on-minority or minority-on-white. I don't know why, but I also don't feel like it's an attack on me as a white non-criminal. The fact that this article did not use the word "race" really doesn't leave anything about the story uncertain. I don't feel like they're hiding something. At worst, you have a situation where editors chose their words a little too carefully.

I just question the motivation for getting worked up about this stuff. It's like when you hear a white person say, "Black people call each other '######' all the time, so why is it so bad when white people say it?" I mean, do you want to say it? Do you feel you're being repressed somehow because it's socially unacceptable for you to say "######?"

So what's the problem here? Are you afraid blacks are going to be allowed to go genocidal while the media ignores it?

We should get worked up because the media's job is to remain objective. Atleast those that aren't in oppinion or commentary.

[Bender]

good examples posted by ig.

If whites are the attackers, there will most likely be "racial" and "hate crime" splashed all over the articles. When blacks are the attackers, the article in the OP tones down the event as a "bias crime".

anybody that thinks this isn't so has got their head in the sand, or someplace else.

[rjv]

Basically, the third one.

I freely acknowledge the media is PC, and it's more sensationalist (and I guess better for business) to over-racialize white crimes against minorities than minority-on-minority or minority-on-white. I don't know why, but I also don't feel like it's an attack on me as a white non-criminal. The fact that this article did not use the word "race" really doesn't leave anything about the story uncertain. I don't feel like they're hiding something. At worst, you have a situation where editors chose their words a little too carefully.

I just question the motivation for getting worked up about this stuff. It's like when you hear a white person say, "Black people call each other '######' all the time, so why is it so bad when white people say it?" I mean, do you want to say it? Do you feel you're being repressed somehow because it's socially unacceptable for you to say "######?"

So what's the problem here? Are you afraid blacks are going to be allowed to go genocidal while the media ignores it?

it's sort of like being PC about PC

[Ignignokt]

good examples posted by ig.

If whites are the attackers, there will most likely be "racial" and "hate crime" splashed all over the articles. When blacks are the attackers, the article in the OP tones down the event as a "bias crime".

anybody that thinks this isn't so has got their head in the sand, or someplace else.

Actually, those people like Blake and winehole rather just paint people who raise this issue as reactionary or bitter white bigots. They don't really care about wether the issue is legit.

And i don't think they will concede on these examples unless we can reproduce the exact same conditions to the tee, to the same number of accomplices, same journalist, same location, but insert whitey. They will just fillibuster and evade the inevitable conclusion that media does have a bias when it comes to hate crimes reporting.

They will eventually admit this and then criticize their opponents for being butthurt or steamed up about nothing. That's their motto, along with offering nothing but logical fallacies and cynical one liners.

ex A by Spurminator..

So what's the problem here? Are you afraid blacks are going to be allowed to go genocidal while the media ignores it?

Obviously they will finally concede and wish to bury the issue. It is all about being PC about being PC.

Spineless pieces of tbh.

[Höfner]

Bias Crime is probably the most politically correct term yet.

[rjv]

i'm just wondering that if PC is wrong, then is being PC about PC wrong? or are we just following the rabbit down the hole? maybe foucault is the madhatter (or derrida) and we can ask him what this entire decronstuctionalist spin on the truth represents about both the news and readers.

[Blake]

You seem to want to employ scheme because then I have to argue wether a whole group of people are deliberately out of volition orchestrating this. You're either doing this to be dishonest or your trying to be adverserial. Do white people orchestrate together and scheme white flight, or is it an impulse that is reactionary based on their viewpoint?

The whole "Scheme" description is a deliberate attempt to ridicule and not properly discuss the issue which has led me to conclude that you're not a serious poster.

The story is about black on mexican crime. The question has to be asked if this was white on mexican crime, would the story be any different. Does the the journalist viewpoint on racial conflict and dogma affect his reporting? These are legitimate questions that would be posed in any journalism class, so i don't see why you can't take these questions seriously.

I had thought you were saying a scheme was very plausible. Misinterpretation on my part.

I think it's funny though that you are asking others to take your questions seriously.

[Spurminator]

We should get worked up because the media's job is to remain objective. Atleast those that aren't in oppinion or commentary.

People pick and choose which examples of alleged partiality the media they're going to get worked up about. Seems silly to choose an example that doesn't fail to illustrate any aspect of the story to the objective reader. The article states that the alleged attackers are predominantly black and that the victims are predominantly Hispanic. If it left either of these out, I think your outrage would be more justified. But it didn't.

How would you re-write the article to better illustrate what is really happening?

[Ignignokt]

People pick and choose which examples of alleged partiality the media they're going to get worked up about. Seems silly to choose an example that doesn't fail to illustrate any aspect of the story to the objective reader. The article states that the alleged attackers are predominantly black and that the victims are predominantly Hispanic. If it left either of these out, I think your outrage would be more justified. But it didn't.

How would you re-write the article to better illustrate what is really happening?

HOw so? Nobody is mad about leaving out the facts about the perpetrators, just that this article is handling the issue with kid gloves for the apparent fact that it's a downtrodden minority. The reporting here is clearly biased and is an example of subjective reporting.

[Bender]

How would you re-write the article to better illustrate what is really happening?

yeah, so the article might be ok on it's own, if other articles always used "bias crime". The problem is that IF it was white guys doing the perpetrating... the article MOST LIKELY would have use more sensationalistic language... for example, "racial crime" or "hate crime".

anybody that denies that is clueless.

[ChumpDumper]

How would you re-write the article to better illustrate what is really happening?

[rjv]

here is an interesting find from the FBI site:

A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/...tecrime12.html

[ChumpDumper]

yeah, so the article might be ok on it's own, if other articles always used "bias crime". The problem is that IF it was white guys doing the perpetrating... the article MOST LIKELY would have use more sensationalistic language... for example, "racial crime" or "hate crime".

anybody that denies that is clueless.

I suppose if that particular writer used different terms for different groups (maybe that has been discussed), you'd have a case.

[rjv]

and this from the assistant DA himself: " Over the last week, the Assistant District Attorney in charge of bias crimes for my office presented evidence to a grand jury in the case involving the assault and robbery of Rodolfo Olmedo," District Attorney Daniel Donovan said in a release. "We offered evidence in support of, and asked the jurors to consider that these facts satisfied the statutory elements required by law to prove that these crimes were motivated by bias."

http://www.silive.com/northshore/ind...in_port_r.html

[Blake]

The reporting here is clearly biased and is an example of subjective reporting.

bias crime!

[Ignignokt]

People pick and choose which examples of alleged partiality the media they're going to get worked up about. Seems silly to choose an example that doesn't fail to illustrate any aspect of the story to the objective reader. The article states that the alleged attackers are predominantly black and that the victims are predominantly Hispanic. If it left either of these out, I think your outrage would be more justified. But it didn't.

How would you re-write the article to better illustrate what is really happening?

I would raise the question of racial tension and why the crimes unit doesn't label it as hate crime instead of bias crime.

[rjv]

I would raise the question of racial tension and why the crimes unit doesn't label it as hate crime instead of bias crime.

sounds to me like the reporter used the vernacular not uncommon to the crime in that region. even other reports have used 'hate' and 'bias' and the assistant DA that is quoted above specifically used the term "bias crimes".

[DarrinS]

"bias" is quite the euphemism for racial hatred

[rjv]

apparently there are several "bias crime " units throughout the country. the reason being that the police offers are too look for or investigate 'bias' motives.

[Spurminator]

I would raise the question of racial tension and why the crimes unit doesn't label it as hate crime instead of bias crime.

That's what opinion columns are for.

[Winehole23]

Actually, those people like Blake and winehole rather just paint people who raise this issue as reactionary or bitter white bigots.

Some are, some aren't. The issue can be legit and people can raise it in bad faith at the same time.

They don't really care about wether the issue is legit.

Whether the racial sensitivities of newsrooms and editorial boards are biased? Sure, it's legit to complain about this.

It's also legit to question the bona fides of some of those who complain, based on the totality of what they post here.

And i don't think they will concede on these examples unless we can reproduce the exact same conditions to the tee, to the same number of accomplices, same journalist, same location, but insert whitey. They will just fillibuster and evade the inevitable conclusion that media does have a bias when it comes to hate crimes reporting.

Your own examples amount to little more than anecdote, so the conclusion is hardly inevitable, but it seems plausible enough to me.

Obviously they will finally concede and wish to bury the issue. It is all about being PC about being PC.

It's your own "more PC than thou" conceit that really grates.

Conservatives used to mock PC: now they try to win the victim sweepstakes.

Exhibit A: Ignignokt

[Winehole23]

"bias" is quite the euphemism for racial hatred

Racial hatred shouldn't be a crime.