Media Bias

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Yeah because people in power never collude with each other to create the conditions for war and economic gain.

Really, I thought they were expending all their energy on stopping hypothetical economic theories..

I think you're suffering from 'conspiracy phobia'. You're an 'innocence theorist' - which is perhaps more mental than a committed (no pun intended) conspiracy theorist.

Nice theory

valknut

Jonny7 wrote: »

Violence on blacks in America carries several hundred years of brutal repression, slavery and other nastiness with it

Hence a story of a white guy doing something bad to a black guy, especially in the US - will carry much more weight than vice-versa

News has to be "news-worthy", otherwise we'd be sitting through 7 hour news bulletins covering every murder, bomb, flood, etc in the world.

Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves.

This video gives a good view why discrimination against whites happens in the US http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNiPoCGz8c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Also,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ULVECUrzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Jonny7

valknut wrote: »

Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves.

This video gives a good view why discrimination against whites happens in the US http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNiPoCGz8c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Also,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ULVECUrzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You do realise you just posted a video by a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, white supremacist and Holocaust denier on the subject of racism in a thread on media bias

sin_city

Did you disagree with valknuts assertion?

"Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves."

Overheal

sin_city wrote: »

Did you disagree with valknuts assertion?

"Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves."

I do.

The concept that only a minority of white people owned slaves,

Whatever way you wish to present the numbers, 4 million people were still enslaved. Shouldn't matter that they were owned by 100,000 people or 10 people.

Whether it was geographically centric to the southern states or not (and the northern states werent pious about it) is irrelevant. The country's entire economy benefited from the slavery. There was no such initiatives back in the day as fair trade coffee or dolphin free tuna or slave free tobacco and cotton and gin.

Again though I fail to see what influence slavery in the early history of the country still has on this conversation. Also, I already discussed the Martin case and the other cases provided in the youtube clip are all rather subjective, circumstantial, and add little to this debate, since its impossible to determine if there was actually a degree of appropriate media coverage for all of these incidents - though you would think there would be for the knowledge of these incidents to be compiled and pushed onto youtube.

SupaNova2

Overheal wrote: »

The country's entire economy benefited from the slavery.

Not really, forgetting that slaves didn't benefit from being slaves, the rest of the population of the country did not benefit in comparison to where they could have been. Bastiat's seen and the unseen, what you get to see is people using products made by slaves(hey look they benefit) what you don't see is the production that would have occurred if those enslaved were free.

If you believe that slaves are more productive than free men, fine, you can argue that it was not capitalism that made the US great but the slaves. I doubt most people believe that, some are just desperate for some argument against capitalism.

sin_city

Overheal wrote: »

I do.

The concept that only a minority of white people owned slaves,

Whatever way you wish to present the numbers, 4 million people were still enslaved. Shouldn't matter that they were owned by 100,000 people or 10 people.

Whether it was geographically centric to the southern states or not (and the northern states werent pious about it) is irrelevant. The country's entire economy benefited from the slavery. There was no such initiatives back in the day as fair trade coffee or dolphin free tuna or slave free tobacco and cotton and gin.

Again though I fail to see what influence slavery in the early history of the country still has on this conversation. Also, I already discussed the Martin case and the other cases provided in the youtube clip are all rather subjective, circumstantial, and add little to this debate, since its impossible to determine if there was actually a degree of appropriate media coverage for all of these incidents - though you would think there would be for the knowledge of these incidents to be compiled and pushed onto youtube.

The fact is that there is an apologetic media in the West in relation to blacks and this has roots in slavery. Not only were most of the modern day inhabitants (aside from blacks) of the US not related to the slave owners from the past but also it is likely that they ancestors of many whites that currently live in the the USA were themselves victims of the imperial powers in some way or form. For example ourselves and the Poles.

Slavery seems to be interpreted as a mostly Western phenomenon, however if you look more closely you will see that slavery was ended by Western powers. It continued in the Ottoman Empire long after it had ended in the US.
From the pressure of European powers throughout the world, slavery declined and ended (some slavery still exists even today).

Blacks were not the only victims of slavery and certainly not only blacks in the south of the US.
Slavery did not truly end in the Philippines until the USA took over after the Spanish American war in the early 1900s.

So given the fact that slavery was a worldwide phenomenon, it can be assumed that this was not the reason for the economic power of the USA.

It is a legitimate question to ask what is the reason for the media bias and why does it exist?

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

Really, I thought they were expending all their energy on stopping hypothetical economic theories..

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations: Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

This week, it has been revealed that Charles and David Koch and their wealthy partners funded an, until now, “secret bank” that made “grants” of $236 million during the 2012 election cycle to maintain the right-wing political infrastructure that advances their economic interests. And by all accounts, they’re just getting started.

www.thenation.com

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations: Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

Nice quote, but he never saw modern day Sweden.

InTheTrees

You don't have to own a slave to be a bigot.

Racial intolerance in the Usa is deep and widespread. You come across it a lot and I live in the liberal Pacific northwest.

I think its easy to forget that segregation lasted it'll the 60's too.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

The fact is that there is an apologetic media in the West in relation to blacks and this has roots in slavery.

It has it's roots in slavery, segregation, lynchings, and outright racism. The guilt is embedded in the social fabric of the country, not just the media.

Again, a German adopting a racist attitude against a Jew is a very sensitive issue as it evokes historical context. Yet turn the situation around and it seems almost harmless.

It's certainly not going to change for a long time.

Amerika

Has Time magazine officially become a PR vehicle of the Obama administration?

The recent European, Asian, and South Pacific covers of Time magazine have a picture of Vladimir Putin, with a caption that says "America’s weak and waffling, Russia’s rich and resurgent."

The same US issue has a cover of bright blue skies and a football player, with the caption "It’s time to pay college athletes."

Most often the covers of Time magazine are uniform.

Is there really any doubt the majority of the US media is in the tank for this administration?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/time-mag-hides-putins-success-from-u-s-voters/

Corkfeen

sin_city wrote: »

Did you disagree with valknuts assertion?

"Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves."

Strongly, his entire basis for his argument originates from a racist who wishes to rewrite history and stick to the denial of Americas past in terms of slavery. These are the stats in terms of the Southern population and slave ownership.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
And a map on it

http://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_slave_distribution.pdf

So around a third of the population were used as slaves,this doesn't strike me as a minor instance. While the North had less Slavery and historically has been viewed as more free, slavery still existed in them. Would you trust a US Census more or the Grand Wizard?