STFU idiot unless you have something relevant to the comment. Other than increasing your count.Had they checked the source the article would not have been published.
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Comparing the Michael Brown case to this one when it has absolutely no relevance. One is a completely fabricated rape case and the other is an actual fucking incident that lead to the death of a person.
Originally Posted by shanm
Actually the two have a great deal in common. Both are examples of narrative driven 'reporting' rather than fact driven reporting.
Lets add in MSNBC's hilarious but shameful attempt at stirring up race paranoia by deliberately editing a clip of a man carrying an assault rifle to a Tea Party rally. They edited their footage to show only the man's back with no skin visible, while voicing over the clip with musings about the racial implications of the man since we now have a black president. The bimbo on film wondered if the rifle wasn't an implied threat to our first black president. The only problem was that the man carrying the rifle was black, something MSNBC knew perfectly well since they actually interviewed him. The fact that he was black didn't suit their narrative though, so the interview was never aired, and the only footage of him used disguised his race.
These are all examples of news media being more interested in the narrative they have to tell - whether its the idea of rampant sexual assault on college campuses, or racial animus. Facts are secondary to the narrative, and only utilized if they fit the narrative.
In the case of MSNBC, the narrative was blatant. They had the facts and chose to hide them.
In the case of Michael Brown, within 3 days of the incident, a Youtube video surfaced that completely debunked the "hands up" lie. It was footage shot in the minutes after the shooting. You can see police arriving at the scene, beginning to string up crime scene tape, and talking to the gathering crowd. In the midst of that, you can clearly hear a bystander recounting what he saw. He describes events that track with Wilson's account. He clearly states that Brown charged the officer, and even as Wilson fired the first few shots at Brown, Brown continued to charge. If any media outlet had investigated that footage, the "hands up" lie would never have persisted as long as it did.
CNN devoted not one, but two full segments to audio recorded on some guy's phone, even going so far as to have the FBI analyze it, because it contained the audio of the bullets being fired. The audio provided no probative value whatsoever, other than to confirm the number of shots fired, but CNN drooled over it just the same. Meanwhile, footage that made it clear that Wilson acted in self defense languished on Youtube, where you can still find it if you are curious, and was completely ignored by all media outlets. Hell, even FOX missed it as far as I've been able to determine. If they aired the footage, I missed it.
Again, the narrative drove the media coverage, not facts.
Lastly, the same was true of the Rolling Stone piece. RS was so excited to have the story, and to print a story that supported the hot topic of sexual assault on campus, that they never bothered to check their facts. Damn the facts, lets get the narrative out there!
Tell me something.....how come you and your buddies are so willing to accept the DOJ's decision labeling officer Wilson as 'not guilty', but aren't so willing to accept the subsequent report(by the same department) that shows that entire Ferguson police department and justice system was riddled with racial bias and discrimination?
Originally Posted by shanm
Well, for one thing, the evidence made it clear that Wilson did nothing wrong. Furthermore, there is not one shred of evidence to indicate that Wilson is or has ever been guilty of racism. No excessive force complaints in his jacket, no complaints of racial profiling. He was clean as a whistle on the day he had his confrontation with Brown. So those are pretty good reasons to accept the DOJ's finding that Wilson was not guilty of any wrong doing.
As to the finding that the entire department was racist, well that is a pretty broad brush to paint with, and yes actually I have strong doubts about some of the facts relied upon to paint the entire department as racist. Debating the merits of the DOJ's findings has nothing to do with the topic of Rolling Stone's massive face plant though, so I'll be glad to join you on a new thread to discuss the DOJ's hunt for the rainbow unicorn of racism in the city of Ferguson.
Now then, my concerns about the Rolling Stone article are several.
First off, does anyone know why claims of sexual assault or rape on a college campus are handled differently from reports made anywhere else? This is something that baffles me. Anytime a college woman claims that she was sexually assaulted or raped, the University steps in to conduct its own investigation, and may or may not bring in the authorities. Why is this ok? What the hell does a college university have to do with investigating a crime? I read a comment once saying that there is a law that requires universities to handle sexual assault claims, but that makes no sense to me. Any of you legal experts know anything about this?
Secondly, if Rolling Stone truly repented the error of their ways, they would immediately release the name of the woman who made the claims. I do hope that the fraternity sues the shit out of Rolling Stone, but even more so, I hope they sue the ever loving shit out of this woman. Rape claims are often derided as it is, and women who are victimized often face an uphill battle where their every motive is questioned. Incidents like this only make it harder for genuine victims to seek justice. Whoever this woman is, she deserves to be strung up by her nipples and her Chicks Rule card revoked for life.
