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

[ArlJim78]

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

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

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 and a few of a these

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]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

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]

Originally Posted by Tom

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

FTFY

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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]

Originally Posted by ElKabong

FTFY

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

[badcompany]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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??

[lsbets]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by mostpost

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!

[Tom]

1 step down, 11 to go.

[HUSKER55]

[whiptastic]

Originally Posted by 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: 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...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.