Breaking - Shooting At Wisconsin Sikh Temple - Difference In Coverage Is Striking

[PaceAdvantage]

Another senseless shooting, but it strikes me how, even at this very EARLY stage of coverage, not only is NBCNEWS.com reporting on the skin color of the shooter, but is quoting someone (allegedly) close to the scene as saying:"We have no idea," he said of the motive. "It's pretty much a hate crime. It's not an insider." How differently would this story be covered if the shooting occurred inside a Church or a Synagogue, and the shooter was not white? I believe it would be vastly different, especially at this early stage. The name, identity and skin color of the shooter would not be revealed until such details were absolutely certified and conclusive via the proper authorities...

But here we apparently have a white male in his 30s, and the media is running with that right off the bat...no lead-cinch confirmation is necessary apparently...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-several-people-reported-shot-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin?lite

A temple committee member, Ven Boba Ri, told the Journal-Sentinel that people inside the temple described the shooter was a white male in his 30s.

"We have no idea," he said of the motive. "It's pretty much a hate crime. It's not an insider."

Ri told the Journal-Sentinel the gunman walked up to a priest who was standing outside the temple and shot him. Then he went inside and started shooting.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'd just like to point out that first quote..."We have no idea..."

BUT, they DO have an idea that it was a hate crime?

Most likely, it is a "hate crime," whatever that is...a crime is a crime, no matter the motive. Would it make it any better if the shooter was pissed off at a guy who perhaps was cheating with his wife or girlfriend?

And that's the point..."WE HAVE NO IDEA..."

BUT, they know it's a hate crime... :rolleyes:

Solid reporting...

[Tom]

Nothing more ridiculous than the idea of a hate crime.
Unless it is what pretends to be the news media.

[TJDave]

I read once where Sikhs carried daggers.

Probably not in their temple, though.

[mostpost]

Another senseless shooting, but it strikes me how, even at this very EARLY stage of coverage, not only is NBCNEWS.com reporting on the skin color of the shooter, but is quoting someone (allegedly) close to the scene as saying: How differently would this story be covered if the shooting occurred inside a Church or a Synagogue, and the shooter was not white? I believe it would be vastly different, especially at this early stage. The name, identity and skin color of the shooter would not be revealed until such details were absolutely certified and conclusive via the proper authorities...

But here we apparently have a white male in his 30s, and the media is running with that right off the bat...no lead-cinch confirmation is necessary apparently...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-several-people-reported-shot-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin?lite

Seven People are dead and you are concerned because the media is saying a white guy did it. Here's a clue. A white guy did do it. And a white guy did it in Aurora and a white guy did it in De Kalb and two white guys did it in Columbine. It was a Muslim at Fort Hood and an Asian at VA. Tech and in each case the identity of the shooter was revealed when it was known. So stop making up stories where there are none.

[mostpost]

I read once where Sikhs carried daggers.

Probably not in their temple, though.
They carry ceremonial daggers everywhere. That does not mean they are effective weapons against a gun or that the average Sikh is skilled in their use.

My next door neighbors are Sikhs and they are very nice, very friendly people.

[mostpost]

I have been hearing on TV that this temple has had some problems in the past because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not.

[PaceAdvantage]

The story has been updated...with some information thrown in for those whiteys out there who might be thinking of pulling a copycat maneuver because they ignorantly believe Sikhs practice the same religion as "the terrorists":Sikh rights groups have reported a rise in bias attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Washington-based Sikh Coalition has reported more than 700 incidents in the U.S. since 9/11, which advocates blame on anti-Islamic sentiment. Sikhs don't practice the same religion as Muslims, but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say.

Sikhism is a monotheistic faith that was founded in South Asia more than 500 years ago. It has roughly 27 million followers worldwide. Observant Sikhs do not cut their hair; male followers often cover their heads with turbans -- which are considered sacred -- and refrain from shaving their beards.I find the above rather astounding. It's almost as if the above paragraph is somehow justifying "incidents" on Muslims because of 9/11...just don't be an idiot and mistake a Sikh for a Muslim terrorist...

"Sikhs don't practice the same religion as Muslims, but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say."

Yeah, so? Are they saying it's ok to go after the "real" Muslims? Just don't attack us Sikhs as we aren't the same religious flavor?

Insanity.

[PaceAdvantage]

Seven People are dead and you are concerned because the media is saying a white guy did it. Here's a clue. A white guy did do it. And a white guy did it in Aurora and a white guy did it in De Kalb and two white guys did it in Columbine. It was a Muslim at Fort Hood and an Asian at VA. Tech and in each case the identity of the shooter was revealed when it was known. So stop making up stories where there are none.You truly are imbecilic.

I'm not concerned that the media is saying a white guy did it. White, Brown, Yellow or Black, whoever did it is a criminal and should be executed for such a blatant disregard for human life.

I'm concerned with how the media treats the reporting of such stories differently depending on the color of the skin of the criminal involved.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have been hearing on TV that this temple has had some problems in the past because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not.So you're also saying it's OK to go after Muslims? Just don't be an ignorant dumb ass white guy and go after the Sikhs?

Wow.

[PaceAdvantage]

Seven People are deadYes, seven people are dead, and there's nothing that can be done about them at this point. I didn't know any of them. I don't cry for everyone who is murdered every day in this country, do you?

I am talking about an aspect of the story...the coverage. If you don't like it, start your own thread mourning the dead.

In case you didn't notice, I started off my thread by calling this incident "Another senseless shooting."

Come at me again with more nonsense that avoids the actual point of the thread.

[PaceAdvantage]

and in each case the identity of the shooter was revealed when it was known. So stop making up stories where there are none.Not quite. The identity of the shooters was NOT revealed immediately when they weren't known to be white.

The media waited patiently for the authorities to confirm the skin color of the shooter, which they obviously did not do in this case.

Therein lies the difference, and that is the point of this thread. If you don't want to discuss this, like I suggested earlier, start your own thread on the incident.

[woodtoo]

Multiculturalism=Fail
The Netherlands have done away with it recently,they finally got it.

[Tom]

Poor mostie, never has a clue what the conversation is about but always has a spin for it.

[FantasticDan]

Come at me again with more nonsense that avoids the actual point of the thread.Point of your thread? Other than pot-stirring, there isn't one. "Imbecilic", indeed.. :ThmbDown:

[PaceAdvantage]

Point of your thread? Other than pot-stirring, there isn't one. "Imbecilic", indeed.. :ThmbDown:Of course there's a point. One you would rather not deal with, and that's fine.

You'll sit there and tell me the media deals with stories of white guys shooting non-whites the same as non-white guys shooting whites.

Ignorant imbecile fits one of us, and I can guarantee you it isn't me.

[mostpost]

You truly are imbecilic.

I'm not concerned that the media is saying a white guy did it. White, Brown, Yellow or Black, whoever did it is a criminal and should be executed for such a blatant disregard for human life.


I'm concerned with how the media treats the reporting of such stories differently depending on the color of the skin of the criminal involved.

They only treat them differently in your mind because in your mind you are a member of a mistreated majority. You have this bad habit of saying something and then saying you didn't say it. I think you really believe it. Or maybe you just don't express yourself well.

[FantasticDan]

Ignorant imbecile fits one of us, and I can guarantee you it isn't me. :rolleyes:

http://saptstrength.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/stir-the-pot.jpg

:ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

So you're also saying it's OK to go after Muslims? Just don't be an ignorant dumb ass white guy and go after the Sikhs?

Wow.

I pointed out that this particular temple had some problems with people who thought they were Muslims and you made it out that I said it was alright to attack Muslims. If I pointed out that the Kentucky Derby took place on the first Saturday in May, you would think I was a horse.
I already know the retort so don't bother.

[PaceAdvantage]

They only treat them differently in your mind because in your mind you are a member of a mistreated majority. You have this bad habit of saying something and then saying you didn't say it. I think you really believe it. Or maybe you just don't express yourself well.You see, it's not in my mind though. It's right there, in black and white (no pun intended) on the screen of the computer monitor at the link presented.

What I posted was the very first, breaking story on the subject.

And not only do they jump right out in the first breaking piece and state the shooter was white, but they also stated it was a hate crime, even though the witness already admitted they had no idea what the motive was... :lol:

And you'll continue to tell me this is all in my mind...

Did they come out and proclaim the Fort Hood shooting was a hate crime in the very first breaking news piece? No, they didn't. They didn't even identify the skin color of the shooter, from what I recall. Maybe you recall differently.

[mostpost]

Poor mostie, never has a clue what the conversation is about but always has a spin for it.

I understand the conversation and I portray it accurately. That is why you have a problem with me.

[PaceAdvantage]

I pointed out that this particular temple had some problems with people who thought they were Muslims and you made it out that I said it was alright to attack Muslims. If I pointed out that the Kentucky Derby took place on the first Saturday in May, you would think I was a horse.
I already know the retort so don't bother.Your exact words:

"because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not."

What difference does it make? Muslim, Sikh, you don't go around killing people period. Whether you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know the difference between Muslim or Sikh or you're a highly intelligent psycho who does know the difference and you limit yourself to Muslims only...what you wrote above can be taken to mean that there exists some sort of difference...some sort of justification! It's just like those who want me to believe a hate crime is worse than some other motive, where the outcome is the same - an innocent person dies.

Unreal. You don't even realize what you're saying! :faint:

[ArlJim78]

has Brian Ross weighed in yet?

[Greyfox]

If I pointed out that the Kentucky Derby took place on the first Saturday in May, you would think I was a horse.


Neigh. (I just horselaughed while reading that.):D

[FantasticDan]

Just another great conspiracy against the poor, trod-upon white man.. when one of our kind shoots up a place, aren't we entitled to a proper news conference conducted by the proper authorities at the appropriate time to identify as such? Why, all the non-white shooters are! I tell ya, I've seen it!

Instead we've got a local newspaper going off all half-cocked and reporting the claims of multiple witnesses, and some church leader who actually dares to call a murderous rampage a hate crime when IN FACT it may be that the poor guy got a parking ticket or they were out of his favorite muffin, and he just snapped.. white folks have been known to do that! But nooooo, it's all, I don't know why he did it, but it's a hate crime! Dude! Stop putting the cart before the hate crime horse! :mad: :ThmbDown:

Is it really too much to ask for a fair shake? That's all I'm after here..

[johnhannibalsmith]

Your exact words:

"because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not."

What difference does it make? Muslim, Sikh, you don't go around killing people period. Whether you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know the difference between Muslim or Sikh or you're a highly intelligent psycho who does know the difference and you limit yourself to Muslims only...what you wrote above can be taken to mean that there exists some sort of difference...some sort of justification! It's just like those who want me to believe a hate crime is worse than some other motive, where the outcome is the same - an innocent person dies.

Unreal. You don't even realize what you're saying! :faint:

Was anyone wearing a hoodie?

[mostpost]

Your exact words:

"because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not."

What difference does it make? Muslim, Sikh, you don't go around killing people period. Whether you're an ignorant fool who doesn't know the difference between Muslim or Sikh or you're a highly intelligent psycho who does know the difference and you limit yourself to Muslims only...

Unreal. You don't even realize what you're saying! :faint:

OK Very slowly.
Sikhs are not Muslims.
There are people who think Sikhs are Muslims.
Those people are wrong.
Some of those people created problems for the Sikhs at the temple where today's shootings took place.
Those problems happened before today.
That may or may not have had anything to do with today's shooting.

As to the statement you quoted above.
"because some very stupid people think they are Muslims. They are not."
"They are not" was added by me to emphasize and make it clear that Sikhs are not Muslims, How anyone could take that sentence and twist it into, "Mostpost thinks it is all right to kill Muslims" is completely unfathomable.

[TJDave]

"They are not" was added by me to emphasize and make it clear that Sikhs are not Muslims, How anyone could take that sentence and twist it into, "Mostpost thinks it is all right to kill Muslims" is completely unfathomable.

Someone needs to tell Muslims it's not OK to kill Muslims.

You can see how others might get the wrong idea.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by mostpost
If I pointed out that the Kentucky Derby took place on the first Saturday in May, you would think I was a horse's ass.

FTFY

[mostpost]

FTFY
I said.
I already know the retort so don't bother.
You bothered. :rolleyes:

[Tom]

No bother, really.
It was my pleasure!

[bigmack]

Amusing to see Mostconfused as the resident Sikh expert as he has a family living on the other side of his apt wall. This, after he IGnorantly ran around talking about illegals not knowing where to go, not speaking the language and generally wandering around reciting - We don't need no stinking badges.

Rational thinking people have had to endure endless media driven narratives as the Tucson shooter was triggered by cross-hairs of a Palin map. Ft. Hood shooting had nothing to do with his religion and on & on.

The FACT is, the media is so far gone with any level of honest reporting we simply have to sit and live with it. This has not yet risen to a level of ridiculous reporting but I have a sneaking suspicion MSNBC will be riddled with reports of 'white people who hate' throughout the coming days/weeks and Mosty will be there to drink it all in without an ounce of objectivity.

[FantasticDan]

I have a sneaking suspicion MSNBC will be riddled with reports of 'white people who hate' throughout the coming days/weeksJeez, really? That's a LOT of history to cover, but they just might be up to the task.. :ThmbUp:

[Robert Fischer]

The media rarely(never?) sticks to reporting objective facts. They work with corporations(starting with their own), and law enforcement.

[bigmack]

Jeez, really? That's a LOT of history to cover, but they just might be up to the task..
Between watching who you find to be a comedic genius, Stevie Colbert, :faint: weren't you one of the dorks talking about Palin cross-hairs on a map?

[Native Texan III]

Multiculturalism=Fail
The Netherlands have done away with it recently,they finally got it.

Which ones have not integrated into US society - the Sikhs or the white man accused of the killings? Who is next on the hit list to "get it" the Amish, the Mormons, the Christian Scientists etc etc etc etc etc .....?

[PaceAdvantage]

"They are not" was added by me to emphasize and make it clear that Sikhs are not Muslims, How anyone could take that sentence and twist it into, "Mostpost thinks it is all right to kill Muslims" is completely unfathomable.The very fact that you feel the need (as does the media, since they did the same exact thing in the linked story) to differentiate between the two, as if the white man is too stupid to kill the CORRECT terrorist, speaks volumes.

You accuse me of being indifferent to those killed today, while focusing solely on a small aspect of the story. And yet here you are, once again "clearing up" who the deranged (and stupid) white man SHOULD be going after, rather than making dumb ass mistakes and going after Sikhs...

Yes, one could easily take your words that way (and the words in the linked story). You're just too blind to realize what you're actually stating in your zeal to somehow prove me wrong (about what, I still don't think you've begun to show).

[ElKabong]

I DON'T understand the conversation and I portray it INaccurately AND LIKE A 13 YO GIRL. That is why you have a problem with me.

FTFY

[FantasticDan]

Between watching who you find to be a comedic genius, Stevie Colbert, :faint: weren't you one of the dorks talking about Palin cross-hairs on a map?Oh I'm definitely one of the dorks, but what I was talking about more than 10 minutes ago I have no idea.. :p

[bigmack]

You want a good laugh? Dial-in CNN as we type. Anchors pronouncing Sikh "Psyche", the already resolved 'fact' that this is a case of domestic terrorism, some beautiful stuff. :ThmbUp:

[Valuist]

Why wouldn't the media be biased? The DHS has already told us that the real terrorists are white people. This is courtesy of the DHS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV5Q1Nf3VMw&feature=youtu.be

[johnhannibalsmith]

...the already resolved 'fact' that this is a case of domestic terrorism...

OAK CREEK, Wisc. (Reuters) - Police dealing with the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin said they believe only one gunman was involved in what they called an act of "domestic terrorism"...


http://news.yahoo.com/police-see-sikh-shooting-domestic-terrorist-incident-213639294.html




OAK CREEK, Wis. (AP) — Police in Wisconsin say the FBI will handle the investigation of shootings at a Sikh temple near Milwaukee.

Oak Creek Police Chief John Edwards says the case is being treated as a domestic terrorism case and the FBI is better equipped to handle that.


http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-investigate-shootings-sikh-temple-212234960.html

[bigmack]

OAK CREEK, Wisc. (Reuters) - Police dealing with the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin said they believe only one gunman was involved in what they called an act of "domestic terrorism"...


http://news.yahoo.com/police-see-sikh-shooting-domestic-terrorist-incident-213639294.html
Nice work. Now find one report from Ft. Hood that called it domestic terrorism soon after the incident. Hell, find one from any of the mainstreams: NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS that have reported that EVER about that clear cut case of terrorism.

[lsbets]

Nice work. Now find one report from Ft. Hood that called it domestic terrorism soon after the incident. Hell, find one from any of the mainstreams: NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS that have reported that EVER about that clear cut case of terrorism.

Our President still doesn't call Ft. Hood a clear cut case of terrorism. :ThmbDown:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Nice work. Now find one report from Ft. Hood that called it domestic terrorism soon after the incident. Hell, find one from any of the mainstreams: NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS that have reported that EVER about that clear cut case of terrorism.

I was just pointing out that the media is reporting what the police are releasing in this case before FanDan or mostie does so with a one a these :rolleyes: and a few of a these :bang:

[ArlJim78]

they assured us right away that the Ft hood shooter wasn't a terrorist.

[bigmack]

I was just pointing out that the media is reporting what the police are releasing in this case before FanDan or mostie does so with a one a these :rolleyes: and a few of a these :bang:
I can dig it. The Milwaukee area PoPo aren't as indoctrinated as the Army & Feds who STILL refuse to believe Ft Hoodie was an act of terrorism. But that's because it was a HUGE blunder on their part.

[Tom]

they assured us right away that the Ft hood shooter wasn't a terrorist.

Wrongly.
But, the media never let facts get in the way of a good slant job.

[lsbets]

Wrongly.
But, mostpost never let facts get in the way of a good slant job.

FTFY

[mostpost]

The very fact that you feel the need (as does the media, since they did the same exact thing in the linked story) to differentiate between the two, as if the white man is too stupid to kill the CORRECT terrorist, speaks volumes.

You accuse me of being indifferent to those killed today, while focusing solely on a small aspect of the story. And yet here you are, once again "clearing up" who the deranged (and stupid) white man SHOULD be going after, rather than making dumb ass mistakes and going after Sikhs...

Yes, one could easily take your words that way (and the words in the linked story). You're just too blind to realize what you're actually stating in your zeal to somehow prove me wrong (about what, I still don't think you've begun to show).

You have become completely irrational. There is no way I can debate you because I have no idea what you are talking about.

[mostpost]

FTFY
The FTFY shtick can be clever. You should avoid it like the plague.

[badcompany]

You have become completely irrational. There is no way I can debate you because I have no idea what you are talking about.


I believe your performance in this thread has fubared your chances of getting a PA Ten Year Anniversary T-Shirt. :lol:

[Tom]

.....l. There is no way I can debate you because I have no idea what you are talking about.


R-e-s-i-s-t-i-n-g..........t-o-o........e-a-s-y.......

[dartman51]

You have become completely irrational. There is no way I can debate you because I have no idea what you are talking about.

You've never let it stop you before. Why start now?? :ThmbUp:

[lsbets]

There is no way I can debate you because I have no idea what I am talking about.

FTFY

You're a stronger man than me Tom. I couldn't resist. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

There is no way I can debate you because I have no idea what you are talking about.And therein lies your most serious issue.

The first step is admitting you have a problem. Good for you! :jump:

[Tom]

1 step down, 11 to go.

[HUSKER55]

:lol:

[whiptastic]

Another senseless shooting, but it strikes me how, even at this very EARLY stage of coverage, not only is NBCNEWS.com reporting on the skin color of the shooter, but is quoting someone (allegedly) close to the scene as saying: How differently would this story be covered if the shooting occurred inside a Church or a Synagogue, and the shooter was not white? I believe it would be vastly different, especially at this early stage. The name, identity and skin color of the shooter would not be revealed until such details were absolutely certified and conclusive via the proper authorities...

But here we apparently have a white male in his 30s, and the media is running with that right off the bat...no lead-cinch confirmation is necessary apparently...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-several-people-reported-shot-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin?lite

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but I might be able to shed a bit of light on why the article you cite unfolds in the way it does. Based on my reading, it looks like the police on the scene observed the deceased shooter and judged -- likely based on tattoos and other background -- that he was likely doing this from the perspective of race/religion. Consider that 1. This is a minority church. 2. The ethnicity of the congregants is different than the shooter. 3. The "style" of the shooting is consistent with that kind of crime. From the article you cite:

Officials told NBC News the suspect, who served in the U.S. Army, had many tattoos. The suspect had some kind of radical or white supremacist views but, as far as officials said they had heard, he was not in any kind of radical organization. His previous run-ins with law enforcement involved traffic offenses, they said.

It's hard to know how differently this would be covered if this guy were not a tatted up skin head who shot up a minority church. I don't recall an instance of a dread locked Rasta shooting up a Presbyterian congregation -- or similar event to compare this to. If you could do me a favor and explain a bit more what your criticism of the media is in this instance, it would help me better understand where you're coming from.

[horses4courses]

The man had been a member of the racist skinhead band End Apathy, based in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in 2010, said Heidi Beirich, director of the intelligence project at the Southern Poverty Law Centre in Montgomery, Alabama.

He also tried to buy goods from the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group, in 2000, she said.

[FantasticDan]

It's hard to know how differently this would be covered if this guy were not a tatted up skin head who shot up a minority church.Tatted up skinhead?? More unfair biased too early to tell media ignominy for the white man! If this was a tatted up skinhead non-white, you can bet we wouldn't be hearing about it!

PS: Mostie's dumb! Nyah nyah!

[Wagergirl]

Tatted up skinhead?? More unfair biased too early to tell media ignominy for the white man! If this was a tatted up skinhead non-white, you can bet we wouldn't be hearing about it!

PS: Mostie's dumb! Nyah nyah!

And it depends on the tat's, there are tat's that are part of the skinhead culture that are required to obtain.

however, I happen to be tat'd up and I am not a skinhead, nor is my husband or my daughter. Tat's do not make a skinhead for sure.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The fact that the guy is a 40-year-old Army vet that served 7 years as part of a psy-op team makes it hard for me to believe that he isn't able to discern Muslims from Seikhs. Maybe... but you'd think the pervasive rhetoric about how it was some dumb hillbilly that doesn't know one turban from another wouldn't make a lot of sense considering the timeframe of his service and intimacy with those populations.

[Robert Fischer]

the idea of killing people at a church is incredibly stupid....

regardless of their religion or perceived image.

It doesn't matter if the victims where sikhs or muslims or christians or jews.

There just aren't ANY motives that fly, regardless of the religion.

This should be obvious to people.

As far as news coverage = it's going to stink. We should all expect that. News is rarely 100% accurate or honest. Even if you buy the basic elements(facts) of the stories they broadcast, you have to accept that usually most of the details, motives, angles etc... is all biased. This is true from any major media, even alternative medias.

[Greyfox]

the idea of killing people at a church is incredibly stupid....
.

The idea of killing innocent people anywhere is incredibly stupid.
(Colateral unintended deaths during war excepted.)

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure I fully understand your point, but I might be able to shed a bit of light on why the article you cite unfolds in the way it does. Based on my reading, it looks like the police on the scene observed the deceased shooter and judged -- likely based on tattoos and other background -- that he was likely doing this from the perspective of race/religion. Consider that 1. This is a minority church. 2. The ethnicity of the congregants is different than the shooter. 3. The "style" of the shooting is consistent with that kind of crime. From the article you cite:



It's hard to know how differently this would be covered if this guy were not a tatted up skin head who shot up a minority church. I don't recall an instance of a dread locked Rasta shooting up a Presbyterian congregation -- or similar event to compare this to. If you could do me a favor and explain a bit more what your criticism of the media is in this instance, it would help me better understand where you're coming from.You're reading a revised article that is more than 24 hours after the incident. I was commenting on the very first breaking news piece. NBCNEWS uses the same link and just keeps updating the article.

Of course they have released more details...and I even said in the beginning, it most likely is a "hate crime." I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with me.

The bottom line is this: when something like the Fort Hood shooting or the Virginia Tech shooting goes down, details are NEVER immediately released...not in the very first story to hit the wire.

Words such as "hate crime" are not reported. The skin color of the suspect isn't reported. None of this is reported in the first cut of the story. The media waits...they wait for total confirmation of the facts.

Not in cases such as yesterday's shooting. Once they get wind it's a crazy white ****er, they have the color of his skin and "hate crime" in version 1.0 of the breaking story. Not only that, they have lessons in the story as well (this might have been version 1.2 though...not sure) about how Sikhs aren't Muslims, as if that really matters much considering we're talking about crazy white ****ers killing innocent people. Putting in the lesson about Sikhs not being Muslims almost makes it seem like the Sikhs (and the media) are saying "Oh no, don't come after us...it's those guys over there you want to kill..."

That's my point.

[PaceAdvantage]

Tatted up skinhead?? More unfair biased too early to tell media ignominy for the white man! If this was a tatted up skinhead non-white, you can bet we wouldn't be hearing about it!

PS: Mostie's dumb! Nyah nyah!You honestly think this is a valid response to my thread? You really do...wow. So predictable...so pathetic.

And so not the point.

[FantasticDan]

You honestly think this is a valid response to my thread? You really do...wow. So predictable...so pathetic. And so not the point.37OWL7AzvHo

[whiptastic]

You're reading a revised article that is more than 24 hours after the incident. I was commenting on the very first breaking news piece. NBCNEWS uses the same link and just keeps updating the article.

Of course they have released more details...and I even said in the beginning, it most likely is a "hate crime." I'm not sure what you're trying to argue with me.

The bottom line is this: when something like the Fort Hood shooting or the Virginia Tech shooting goes down, details are NEVER immediately released...not in the very first story to hit the wire.

Words such as "hate crime" are not reported. The skin color of the suspect isn't reported. None of this is reported in the first cut of the story. The media waits...they wait for total confirmation of the facts.

Not in cases such as yesterday's shooting. Once they get wind it's a crazy white ****er, they have the color of his skin and "hate crime" in version 1.0 of the breaking story. Not only that, they have lessons in the story as well (this might have been version 1.2 though...not sure) about how Sikhs aren't Muslims, as if that really matters much considering we're talking about crazy white ****ers killing innocent people. Putting in the lesson about Sikhs not being Muslims almost makes it seem like the Sikhs (and the media) are saying "Oh no, don't come after us...it's those guys over there you want to kill..."

That's my point.

I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was trying to understand where you were coming from.

From the 'day of' coverage of the Va. Tech shooting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=va+tech+shooting&oq=va+tech+shooting&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.280018.282992.0.283008.17.3.0.14.1 4.0.123.310.2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.DEGJC9OMmTE#q=va+t ech+shooting&hl=en&gl=us&sa=X&ei=zfMfUPuKB46Y8gSO2IGYDw&ved=0CCoQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F17%2F2007%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F 17%2F2007&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=80e10ca3749aaaa9&biw=1280&bih=845), it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a South Korean straight away. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/17/usa-crime-shooting-gunman-idUSN1738987720070417)

From the 'day of' coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=ft.+hood+shooting&oq=ft.+hood+shooting&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0i33j43i400.1137.5089.0.5345.17.16.0.0.0. 0.116.1243.15j1.16.0...0.0...1ac.PHf0tnClSU4#q=ft. +hood+shooting&hl=en&gl=us&sa=X&ei=5PQfUO2YIoim8QStv4HQAQ&ved=0CC0QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A11%2F5%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A11%2 F5%2F2009&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=80e10ca3749aaaa9&biw=1280&bih=845), it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a Muslim of immigrant parents straight away. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/11/07/us-texas-shooting-idUSTRE5A454F20091107)

Google News has a date range filter you can use to isolate to the day of the incident to see what was reported at that time.

With all of that said, I guess I just don't see the media having a bias against crazy white ****ers any more than anyone else. Further, I don't see any reason or evidence to support your assertion that they hold back those details in other instances. In those two cases you've cited, I don't think either fall under the rubric of "hate crime" in the classic sense, where as this one obviously does. I think it was apparent to the police and witnesses what was up.

I think the reason they report that Sikhs aren't Muslims has more to do with a common misconception than anything else. Sikhs have been the target of irrational ire and attacks since 9/11 based on this, and it's worth noting. I don't think it's to forestall other attacks or whatever, nor do I think it's to imply that it's OK to attack Muslims.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Holy hot dog, PA - what is it with your paranoia about the media when it comes to this stuff?

You act like a hispanic shot a black guy and they decided to refer to him as white because he spoke english and wasn't brown, implied an entire county police force was guilty of institutional racism, and promoted the motive as "hate crime" with such techniques as selective editing of 911 calls to feed the narrative - all before 95% of the facts were known...

It's your imagination.

[FantasticDan]

Whip, in both those Ft Hood and VA Tech stories you cite, a day or so had passed and details had been released by official sources. PA is upset that initial stories of this shooting contained "unverified" witness quotes and details from interviews conducted by the local newspaper and picked up in wire reports just hours after, and he believes that never would have happened had the purported shooter not been white.

[Robert Fischer]

Words such as "hate crime" are not reported. The skin color of the suspect isn't reported. None of this is reported in the first cut of the story. The media waits...they wait for total confirmation of the facts.

I agree. The way these possible crimes are reported, and even the definitions of these crimes do not seem to be consistent .




Not only that, they have lessons in the story as well (this might have been version 1.2 though...not sure) about how Sikhs aren't Muslims, as if that really matters much considering we're talking about crazy white ****ers killing innocent people. Putting in the lesson about Sikhs not being Muslims almost makes it seem like the Sikhs (and the media) are saying "Oh no, don't come after us...it's those guys over there you want to kill..."

Agree again. Sometimes you have to wonder whether the media is made up of innocent myopics going with the flow, or whether there is significant intelligence input at some level.

[PaceAdvantage]

I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was trying to understand where you were coming from.

From the 'day of' coverage of the Va. Tech shooting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=va+tech+shooting&oq=va+tech+shooting&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.280018.282992.0.283008.17.3.0.14.1 4.0.123.310.2j1.3.0...0.0...1ac.DEGJC9OMmTE#q=va+t ech+shooting&hl=en&gl=us&sa=X&ei=zfMfUPuKB46Y8gSO2IGYDw&ved=0CCoQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A4%2F17%2F2007%2Ccd_max%3A4%2F 17%2F2007&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=80e10ca3749aaaa9&biw=1280&bih=845), it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a South Korean straight away. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/17/usa-crime-shooting-gunman-idUSN1738987720070417)

From the 'day of' coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=ft.+hood+shooting&oq=ft.+hood+shooting&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0i33j43i400.1137.5089.0.5345.17.16.0.0.0. 0.116.1243.15j1.16.0...0.0...1ac.PHf0tnClSU4#q=ft. +hood+shooting&hl=en&gl=us&sa=X&ei=5PQfUO2YIoim8QStv4HQAQ&ved=0CC0QpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min%3A11%2F5%2F2009%2Ccd_max%3A11%2 F5%2F2009&tbm=nws&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=80e10ca3749aaaa9&biw=1280&bih=845), it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a Muslim of immigrant parents straight away. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/11/07/us-texas-shooting-idUSTRE5A454F20091107) To make things perfectly clear, I'm not talking "day of" coverage, which could conceivably be occurring 12-24 hours after the actual event. I'm talking BREAKING, first call story. The very first version or two that hits the screen on msnbc.com.

That is strictly what I am referring to. That's what prompted me to start the thread. The fact that the very first story to hit the screen on these shootings contained what it contained.

That didn't happen in the reports of other shootings, especially ones perpetrated by non-white crazy ****ers.

[whiptastic]

Whip, in both those Ft Hood and VA Tech stories you cite, a day or so had passed and details had been released by official sources. PA is upset that initial stories of this shooting contained "unverified" witness quotes and details from interviews conducted by the local newspaper and picked up in wire reports just hours after, and he believes that never would have happened had the purported shooter not been white.

I put the Google News complete link for the day the shooting occurred in there to cover for that, but both events were years ago so it's hard to know what was updated when. I thought the specific links were from the day when the shootings took place, but maybe not... anyway, I guess I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

[whiptastic]

To make things perfectly clear, I'm not talking "day of" coverage, which could conceivably be occurring 12-24 hours after the actual event. I'm talking BREAKING, first call story. The very first version or two that hits the screen on msnbc.com.

That is strictly what I am referring to. That's what prompted me to start the thread. The fact that the very first story to hit the screen on these shootings contained what it contained.

That didn't happen in the reports of other shootings, especially ones perpetrated by non-white crazy ****ers.

OK, fair enough. I was busy yesterday, so I didn't see this coverage right when it took place.

[FantasticDan]

That is strictly what I am referring to. That's what prompted me to start the thread. The fact that the very first story to hit the screen on these shootings contained what it contained.The story you originally cited was at least three hours after the shooting took place, and contained witness accounts obtained by the local paper. I would suggest that this was the first story to go over the wire that contained witness details, not the first report of the story itself.

That didn't happen in the reports of other shootings, especially ones perpetrated by non-white crazy ****ers.Really? You saw them all? Got them all memorized?

[Saratoga_Mike]

PA,

Is it the quick reporting on the race of this idiot or the speculation on his motivation that you see as a double-standard here? If it's the former, I don't agree with you. If it's the latter, I think your point is valid.

[PaceAdvantage]

OK, fair enough. I was busy yesterday, so I didn't see this coverage right when it took place.I happened to be logging off of hotmail and when you do that, it automatically takes you to the MSN/BC home page, so that's how I was able to see it early yesterday...

[PaceAdvantage]

The story you originally cited was at least three hours after the shooting took place, and contained witness accounts obtained by the local paper. I would suggest that this was the first story to go over the wire that contained witness details, not the first report of the story itself.

Really? You saw them all? Got them all memorized?You know what, you're right. I'm way off. Coverage of shootings by non-white crazy ****ers, now that I remember it, also contained paragraphs explaining how not all white folk are bad people who are out to conquer the world and rid it of all those evil Muslims. I think I specifically remember that sort of lesson being printed in stories about the Fort Hood shooter... :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh wait...my bad...they never classified the Fort Hood shooting as a hate crime, now did they? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: