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

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by whiptastic

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]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

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]

Originally Posted by whiptastic

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]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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

[YT=""]37OWL7AzvHo[/YT]

[whiptastic]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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, it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a South Korean straight away.

From the 'day of' coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting, it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a Muslim of immigrant parents straight away.

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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 .

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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]

Originally Posted by whiptastic

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, it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a South Korean straight away.

From the 'day of' coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting, it looks like the shooter was ID'd as a Muslim of immigrant parents straight away.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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.