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

Ok, then it was 100% racist. Glad you agree

 

That is certainly one way to look at it. I was not, personally, offering an opinion regarding that, however, so what was in my post, at any rate, could not be legitimately called hypocrisy, or as taking on the role of being, "thought police." I was making no judgements except for my observations of which types of stories the media gives extra attention. Do you not agree that this is the case?

 

my point is it was not a hate crime, it was a senseless crime by two teenage girls that need to pay the price for their crime

what is yours?

 

I don’t know nor do I particularly think you have a strong argument. But go ahead with whatever you think your outrage- I mean argument is.

 

Your "word" is always good with me DEF.

 

So the media did NOT go completely wild over a white woman calling the police on a black man in a park?

 

So because it wasn't a hate crime, the races of the people involved should not be mentioned in the media?

 

Again, how do you know that it was because he was black?

 

What is newsworthy to you?

 

Forget about the hate crime aspect. You said, "I agree that this is an interesting story, but it comes down to a less than sensational crime." So again I ask, what was so "sensational" about a woman calling the police on a black man in a park?

 

When you said "in finding someone, yes", in response to me asking if using race to identify someone is racist, I took your "yes", to mean yes, it IS racist.

 

On a national or a local level?

 

However you interpret the question.

 

How do you know that it resulted in the death? Is the Chauvin trial over?

 

Stuff which matters.

 

I was not saying that ONLY sensational crimes get in the news. Come on, Chris, use your head. I said something like, if it were more sensational, it might have rec'd wider coverage. Do you not recognize that, "sensational," crimes get covered, even if they are not all that consequential? But are ALL stories on the news sensational? Of course not. There are numerous reasons a story might get widely covered. A second reason is the inverse of the last one: CONSEQUENTIAL stories usually/often get covered, even if they're not that sensational. Then comes the category that most interests you: stories meant to promote a given perspective or, "agenda," (I'm guessing you would call it). I am not familiar with the black man in the park story that you keep referencing. In this case, you might perhaps classify the story as this third type when, many of those who decided to cover it may have considered it a variation of the 2nd type: not consequential in & of itself but indicative of a PATTERN which IS of importance (e.g., police violence against blacks). I don't know how that story turned out but, especially if it has an ironic twist to it, some might have considered at variant of the 1st type of story: not sensational, but still having some shock value.

Are we good, now?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/amy-cooper-false-report-charge.html

 

What a dumb f'ing *****. That story DEFINITELY falls under the #1 type variation, where it has some unexpected twist, giving it shock value. And they even have the SAME LAST NAME! How bizarre!

Notice, though, how it could also fall under the category #2 variation, of being consequential, not in & of itself, but in its putting this very significant, current, salient topic, of the differing racial dynamics which exist in our society, into such stark relief. Clearly, if that screwball was going to call the cops on a white guy, she wouldn't so emphasize his skin color. She did this with the expectation that it would get a more aggressive police response, which is why she thought she could use it to frighten him, as leverage.

What a piece of dog poop.

 

And what is the unexpected twist?

 

If you could name a case, you would have already done so!

 

And yet, you cannot say either way if all media is obsessed with race! How telling that you aren't even saying that they DO NOT obsess with race, even though you say that you see "plenty" of media! If you do see "plenty", then you should be able to give an opinion either way!

 

Okay, so you're unable to do Michael Brown. It's a bit too inconvenient isn't it?

 

Clearly you’re not actually familiar with the story. Get back to me when you educate yourself.

 

What does the trial have to do with the outcome of the events of Chauvin kneeling on the neck of a man who was face down and handcuffed and at one point unconscious for about 3 mins with a knee still on his neck?

 

I only see you as the one obsessed with race. How sad for you.