If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:46:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote: I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different scene. I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people. I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes" would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would be as negative as a description using "looters". Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the law into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the necessary and proper thing to do. The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation. It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law is supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed and worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the police fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been absolutely useless. Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole cloth. It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence. What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive connotation. The origin of the word is irrelevant; the current connotation of the word is all that is relevant when it comes to news reporting. George Will or William Safire (may he R.I.P) may do a column exploring English usage and the origin of words and phrases, but news journalists deal with present connotation. They are not, for example, going to use the perfectly legitimate word "niggardly" in a news piece after the 1999 Washington DC flap. My criticism of Chris is that he blows his credibility when he fabricates examples to make his point. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message
[...] Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole cloth. [...] A Google search on "fox vigilantes looters 'new orleans'" gets nearly 4,500 hits. The general thrust is that Fox more than any other station pushed the line that in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the mainly black population of New Orleans descended into an orgy of looting and violence that justified a strong police/military response (for example, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168269,00.html). It followed this up with a "documentary" series on post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans called K-ville that glamourised the New Orleans police as some kind of thin blue line in an outlaw city when in reality it is notorious for its corruption, racism and inefficiency (for example, http://www.counterpunch.org/flaherty09152007.html). If anything, the role of white vigilantes killing black men was underplayed by the media, especially by Fox. The full and disturbing account was compiled by crime journalist A.C. Thompson of the Nation. His full article and and interview about how it came to be can be found at http://www.alternet.org/story/114286...rina_flooding/. The major points I found in only a few minutes search were that: 1. Fox pushed the demonisation of the black population of New Orleans by exaggerating the extent of the violence and looting; 2. The media generally underplayed the actions of white vigilantes and the refusal of the NOPD to investigate these crimes; 3. The implication is that the media, with Fox leading the way, played upon racial stereotypes that distorted the reporting of the facts. Now, I don't want to get buried in the details of this particular argument, but I do want to suggest some of you might want to think about short-circuiting these endless he-said/she-said subthreads by doing some homework, especially on things that are easily checked. Who knows, people might end up learning something. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:08:09 +1100, "DRS"
wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message [...] Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole cloth. [...] A Google search on "fox vigilantes looters 'new orleans'" gets nearly 4,500 hits. The general thrust is that Fox more than any other station pushed the line that in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the mainly black population of New Orleans descended into an orgy of looting and violence that justified a strong police/military response (for example, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168269,00.html). It followed this up with a "documentary" series on post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans called K-ville that glamourised the New Orleans police as some kind of thin blue line in an outlaw city when in reality it is notorious for its corruption, racism and inefficiency (for example, http://www.counterpunch.org/flaherty09152007.html). If anything, the role of white vigilantes killing black men was underplayed by the media, especially by Fox. The full and disturbing account was compiled by crime journalist A.C. Thompson of the Nation. His full article and and interview about how it came to be can be found at http://www.alternet.org/story/114286...rina_flooding/. The major points I found in only a few minutes search were that: 1. Fox pushed the demonisation of the black population of New Orleans by exaggerating the extent of the violence and looting; 2. The media generally underplayed the actions of white vigilantes and the refusal of the NOPD to investigate these crimes; 3. The implication is that the media, with Fox leading the way, played upon racial stereotypes that distorted the reporting of the facts. Now, I don't want to get buried in the details of this particular argument, but I do want to suggest some of you might want to think about short-circuiting these endless he-said/she-said subthreads by doing some homework, especially on things that are easily checked. Who knows, people might end up learning something. I would like to suggest that you might want to think about reading the posts I've made and addressing what I've said and not what you seem to think I've said. I've made no comments about Fox's handing of the Katrina aftermath conditions. I haven't maintained that Fox did or did not demonize the black population. I haven't maintained that any reporting agency presented biased or unbiased stories. I haven't maintained that Fox did or did not play on racial stereotyping. I haven't commented on any of that. What I objected to was Chris's comment "I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people." He used this as a example of words used on Fox programming to portray a "different scene". I don't believe he heard that. I believe that he made it up. I do not believe that any journalist on any station or with any news medium would use "vigilante" as a positive comparison to the negative "looters". Making claims that he can't support by providing a cite is bad, but making up quotes to support a claim is worse. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:08:09 +1100, "DRS" wrote: [...] Now, I don't want to get buried in the details of this particular argument, but I do want to suggest some of you might want to think about short-circuiting these endless he-said/she-said subthreads by doing some homework, especially on things that are easily checked. Who knows, people might end up learning something. I would like to suggest that you might want to think about reading the posts I've made and addressing what I've said and not what you seem to think I've said. I've made no comments about Fox's handing of the Katrina aftermath conditions. I haven't maintained that Fox did or did not demonize the black population. I haven't maintained that any reporting agency presented biased or unbiased stories. I haven't maintained that Fox did or did not play on racial stereotyping. I haven't commented on any of that. True. What I objected to was Chris's comment "I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people." He used this as a example of words used on Fox programming to portray a "different scene". True. I don't believe he heard that. I believe that he made it up. This is where people (I'm not picking on you particularly) slip into the endless he said/she said subthreads that go nowhere. What I showed was a context of natural disaster, media demonisation of the black population and largely under-reported white vigilantiism in which it is easy for memory to make errors or conflate elements of different stories. The way out of these endlessly repetitive threads that establish nothing is to do some homework. I do not believe that any journalist on any station or with any news medium would use "vigilante" as a positive comparison to the negative "looters". Had you checked the first link I gave you'd have found anecdotal evidence in the first paragraph to support your claim: "Thousands of National Guardsmen and women armed with food, water and weapons streamed into the hurricane-ravaged New Orleans on Friday to bring relief to the suffering and take back the streets from the looters and armed vigilantes." Making claims that he can't support by providing a cite is bad, but making up quotes to support a claim is worse. Maybe he made it up, maybe he made an error, maybe it's true and it's on YouTube. I don't know. But for heaven's sake, let's all please move on. Somewhere. Anywhere. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message The religious right in the US is no different to the religious fanatics anywhere else. Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics cutting people's hands and feet off for not properly following religious law? How about the KKK lynching people? Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics stoning a girl to death on suspicion of her having had illicit sex with someone? Here you see religious fatantics bombing clinics and assasinating doctors. -- Ray Fischer |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:46:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington" wrote: "tony cooper" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote: I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different scene. I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and get supplies for people. I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes" would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would be as negative as a description using "looters". Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the law into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the necessary and proper thing to do. The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of "vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation. It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law is supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed and worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the police fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been absolutely useless. Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole cloth. It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence. What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive connotation. The origin of the word is irrelevant; the current connotation of the word is all that is relevant when it comes to news reporting. I agree, I cannot imagine reporters using the word "vigilantes" in anything but a negative way. George Will or William Safire (may he R.I.P) may do a column exploring English usage and the origin of words and phrases, but news journalists deal with present connotation. They are not, for example, going to use the perfectly legitimate word "niggardly" in a news piece after the 1999 Washington DC flap. guffaw! I remember that well, though I didn't recall what the city was. You're right, of course. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper wrote:
It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence. What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive I know it's not FN, but the AP was pretty embarassed when a photo of blacks "looting" groceries was constasted with another photo of whites "scavanging". http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controve...hotos_captions - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Neil Harrington wrote:
Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics cutting people's hands and feet off for not properly following religious law? In Islamic law, cutting off a hand is the punishment for grand theft. .....believe it or not, there are actually repeat offenders. But aside from Saudi Arabia, I'm not aware of any *government* that subscribes to this. Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics stoning a girl to death on suspicion of her having had illicit sex with someone? Citation, please? The only Islamic law I'm aware of prescribes this as punishment upon *conviction*, which takes four eye-witnesses to the actual act. It's actually pretty rare. Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics gang-raping a girl to punish her family for some alleged breach of religious or tribal rules? And again, what legitimate government does this? Do you ever *think* before you write all this rubbish? Ditto. I can recall a few stories about the backwaters of Kentucky and West Virginia that do things. Because if you're going to use backwater hicks as a basis for judging a billion or so people, you might as well apply that principle consistently. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
On 08 Oct 2009 17:44:39 GMT, Stuffed Crust
wrote: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper wrote: It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence. What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive I know it's not FN, but the AP was pretty embarassed when a photo of blacks "looting" groceries was constasted with another photo of whites "scavanging". http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controve...hotos_captions That would have been embarrassing to the AP. What many people do not realize is that photo captions, headlines, and sub-heads are not written by the reporter(s) who came up with the story or the photographer who took the picture. Many reporters and photographers have been embarrassed by similar gaffes done by sub-editors who scan the article. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
"tony cooper" wrote in message ... On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some minor discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your point....Savageduck does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than specifics, The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for bungling the specifics. I never said either one of those things....The unemployment is currently at 9.8% nationally, although here in Oregon it is closer to 12% A vigilante is an unlicensed policeman. and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the difference between minor specifics and my general logic. Oddly enough, this could very well be the defense that one of those political commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity would use when caught out. They might completely twist and spin the truth, but would claim that their general logic is correct even if their specifics are not. Please point out where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking instantly. I would not expect you to. You have a strong bias against the US and a disdain for the US military. You have deep-seated misconceptions about the American public. I believe in the basic intelligence of the, "American public". I mistrust the government, and with good cause.....So what? I believe that Obama should give the 40 K troops to the generals fighting the war in Afghanistan. They know what they need. He does not. Pointing out your errors or misapprehensions isn't going to change your thinking. And, frankly, attempting to enlighten you isn't a game worth the candle. Certainly your attempting to enlighten me isn't worth anything.....You don't know enough to enlighten anybody. You are a liberal.....Enough said. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Chris H | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | October 1st 09 08:24 AM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:21 PM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:14 PM |
The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!! | Bill Graham | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 17th 09 11:04 PM |