What is the correct take on this?

[rockcasbah]

"Video shows stranger attacking Asian woman with hammer in NYC"

I assume most of you have seen this story.

The media doesn't reference the race or gender of the Asian woman's attacker.

What is the correct take on this?

 

[KristainSC]

"Video shows stranger attacking Asian woman with hammer in NYC"

I assume most of you have seen this story.

The media doesn't reference the race or gender of the Asian woman's attacker.

What is the correct take on this?

Unfortunately, if it doesn’t fit a narrative they’ll omit that information. The media today is not interested in the news, they’re interested in creating a narrative

 

[rockcasbah]

Unfortunately, if it doesn’t fit a narrative they’ll omit that information. The media today is not interested in the news, they’re interested in creating a narrative

Is there a ranking of races across editorial boards in the media?

How am I supposed to process this?

 

[Dribble]

My two primary media sources do. Maybe you should change sources?

 

[rockcasbah]

My two primary media sources do. Maybe you should change sources?

RT is covering it as a black attacker?

 

[Dribble]

My media sources identified the race of both the attacker and the victims...as should happen when race crimes happen. Again...maybe you should search for a new media source? Or not...that choice is yours

 

[rockcasbah]

My media sources identified the race of both the attacker and the victims...as should happen when race crimes happen. Again...maybe you should search for a new media source? Or not...that choice is yours

Google news results don't mention the attacker's race in the first 10 major media results.

Maybe you could provide a link or two, though I doubt you will. Or can.

 

[rockcasbah]

First time I've noticed a black assailant being whitewashed by the media, maybe it happens all the time.



"As of 2019, here is the current distribution of the U.S. population by race and ethnicity:

White: 60.1% (Non-Hispanic)
Hispanic: 18.5%
Black: 12.2%
Asian: 5.6%
Multiple Races: 2.8%
American Indian/Alaska Native: 0.7%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander: 0.2%"

Does your race as an attacker only deserve mention if you attack up the food chain?

 

[mayfly13]

1. If there is a ranking, it probably changes weekly depending on what angle would provide the most business.


2. Historically, journalism has never been completely unbiased, but it seems as though the era of journalists fighting against the government (such as with Watergate) is over and the media is more in line with protecting the government.

3. At least until the next major cultural shift occurs.

Also
I think that most of us feel supersaturated and resentful of the propaganda we're constantly bombarded with, every time we click on some news channel or watch an adds-sponsored video on youtube.
--- Left's woke-ism and the Right's racism
--- or Nike's (who didn't pay a dime in taxes over the last year) woke adds.

The startling thing for me is no longer that it's so ubiquitous,
but that it's so transparent and crass.

I'm puzzled. Are journalists, newspaper managers so oblivious to how transparent they are, and that most people just roll their eyes?
Or is it just mere disdain for the plebe, their game being just to tick the boxes required by their corporate/state sponsors?

 

[hobbit.]

If there is a ranking, it probably changes weekly depending on what angle would provide the most business.
.

Not on Trustpilot.....

 

[Dribble]

Google news results don't mention the attacker's race in the first 10 major media results.

Maybe you could provide a link or two, though I doubt you will. Or can.

NPR and CNN. You figure the rest out. Or maybe the words "Asian" and "Black" don't mean the same thing to you...although I doubt it does...or that you can find it.

 

[rockcasbah]

NPR and CNN. You figure the rest out. Or maybe the words "Asian" and "Black" don't mean the same thing to you...although I doubt it does...or that you can find it.

From CNN.com

In Manhattan, two Asian women, ages 29 and 31, were approached from behind Sunday by a person who asked them to remove their face masks, the NYPD said.
Video shows the person swung a hammer at the women, who tried to fight off the attacker before walking away.
The attacker wounded the 31-year-old in the head, and she was taken to a hospital, according to NYPD's hate crimes Twitter account.

 

[rockcasbah]

Here's another one from yesterday:

https://www.dailydot.com/irl/man-attacking-asian-women-cement-block/


No mention of the attacker's race, just the victim's race.

Why?

 

[Paul_Chance]

Here are the 2019 Hate Crime Stats by Offender Race from the UCR. This isn't the entire report, though links are provided within to the other portions of it.

2019 Hate Crime Report

To touch the third rail of race:

Whites (including Hispanics*) are the offender in 52% of hate crime from a general population percentage of 78.8 percent.

Blacks are the offender in 23.9% of hate crimes from a general population percentage of 13.4%.

*In the UCR "Hispanic" is an ethnicity, not a race, so for statistical purposes they're included with White, which is divided into "White, Non-Hispanic" and "White, Hispanic".

 

[rockcasbah]

Interesting stats.

But it doesn’t address the question of omitting race when the attacker is black.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, you know how the game is played by now... if you can't bear to face the facts, then point the other finger of blame at Whitey.

 

[rockcasbah]

Well, you know how the game is played by now... if you can't bear to face the facts, then point the other finger of blame at Whitey.

I thought the basic idea was that all people are equal.

I'm not sure how the United States is fundamentally different from China or Russia if all Americans aren't equal.

 

[HisArpy]

I thought the basic idea was that all people are equal.

I'm not sure how the United States is fundamentally different from China or Russia if all Americans aren't equal.

Equality has been replaced with equity because a bunch of MORONS think the 2 words mean the same thing and even more MORONS went along with it.

 

[rockcasbah]

In practice, equality is on a case by case basis

Oh, so that's what the 14th Amendment means...

 

[Curmudgeonly]

From a philosophical point of view, then yes all people are created equal.

In practice, equality is on a case by case basis and only if it is beneficial to certain people/groups. However, if equality benefits the person/group that seems to be viewed as the enemy/antagonist then it is not applied or it is fought against.

At least that is how it looks from my perspective.

Orwell addressed that. Some pigs are simply more equal.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Reasons Why Race Is Omitted

In terms of "why" race is omitted, there are a variety of possible reasons.

In General:

From a journalistic standpoint, the writer may have come to the conclusion that the attacked race was not relevant to the story. The "story" is "Asian American Hate Crime", to that the story, the race of the attacker is irrelevant.

This is a conscious value judgement by the writer.

Mechanics:

If you take any event, such as this specific hate crime, there are structural and frictional limitations on the information available and the information presented. The structural limitation fall into three broad categories - writer bias, editor bias, and institutional bias.

This is most often visible in journalism in the form of omitted incident details - sometimes they are frictional - details not known at the point in time the story is being written and published. Sometimes they are details known but deemed irrelevant, and sometimes they are invalid rhetorical argument (the fallacy known as the argument of emphasis).

This bias, either intentional or not, first can occur in the writer. Then, it can occur in the editor. Both have the opportunity to omit or emphasize certain specific details. Finally, it can occur when the writer/editor are working according to an institutional style guide, which may say "do not racially identify the perpetrators of a crime".

The frictional errors are common enough in the age of modern journalism where time to wire matters (the desire to be first with any story). This is why, as a consumer of news, we should exercise caution is assuming the early editions of any story are correct.

The structural errors are also common in the age of modern media, where media outlets have a target audience and an editorial slant. These can (and do) slant articles on a consistent basis.

So, what can consumers of news do?

First, source your information widely and know your sources - know the frictional and structural limitations on them.

Second, keep skepticism handy in your mental toolbox. Approach all things and sources with skepticism. A professor of mine once said something that has stuck with me for thirty plus years. "It is always an excellent practice to apply the same level of skeptical scrutiny to things you want to believe as you apply to things you do not want to believe."

Third and final (for now, LOL) always be ready to change your mind as you gain more information. Way back in the day, Aristotle told us to remember that "everything is perspective". The best way to find the truth is to gain as many perspectives as you can.

 

[icanhelp1]

In terms of "why" race is omitted, there are a variety of possible reasons.

In General:

From a journalistic standpoint, the writer may have come to the conclusion that the attacked race was not relevant to the story. The "story" is "Asian American Hate Crime", to that the story, the race of the attacker is irrelevant.

This is a conscious value judgement by the writer.

Mechanics:

If you take any event, such as this specific hate crime, there are structural and frictional limitations on the information available and the information presented. The structural limitation fall into three broad categories - writer bias, editor bias, and institutional bias.

This is most often visible in journalism in the form of omitted incident details - sometimes they are frictional - details not known at the point in time the story is being written and published. Sometimes they are details known but deemed irrelevant, and sometimes they are invalid rhetorical argument (the fallacy known as the argument of emphasis).

This bias, either intentional or not, first can occur in the writer. Then, it can occur in the editor. Both have the opportunity to omit or emphasize certain specific details. Finally, it can occur when the writer/editor are working according to an institutional style guide, which may say "do not racially identify the perpetrators of a crime".

The frictional errors are common enough in the age of modern journalism where time to wire matters (the desire to be first with any story). This is why, as a consumer of news, we should exercise caution is assuming the early editions of any story are correct.

The structural errors are also common in the age of modern media, where media outlets have a target audience and an editorial slant. These can (and do) slant articles on a consistent basis.

So, what can consumers of news do?

First, source your information widely and know your sources - know the frictional and structural limitations on them.

Second, keep skepticism handy in your mental toolbox. Approach all things and sources with skepticism. A professor of mine once said something that has stuck with me for thirty plus years. "It is always an excellent practice to apply the same level of skeptical scrutiny to things you want to believe as you apply to things you do not want to believe."

Third and final (for now, LOL) always be ready to change your mind as you gain more information. Way back in the day, Aristotle told us to remember that "everything is perspective". The best way to find the truth is to gain as many perspectives as you can.

And then there’s the anonymous source familiar with the subject matter.

 

[Paul_Chance]

And then there’s the anonymous source familiar with the subject matter.

Yeah, "anonymous sources" are should be an area of high skepticism and approached with a "wait and see" attitude, at least in terms of understanding the truth of an item. (Though, in the referenced stories, they're not really relevant.)

When evaluating anonymous sources the key to assessing validity is in the specific detail - and then validating the specific detail against known and trusted sources. They're fraught with problems (as we see repeatedly).

 

[rockcasbah]

Does the FCC have any authority to deal with dog whistle broadcasters?

 

[sigh]

Looks to me like every major outlet published the video which clearly shows a black woman as the attacker. Maybe it wasn't mentioned in the stories (not sure, haven't looked for it either way) because if you lift your eyes from text to picture you can see it for yourself. In a google search the videos show up before the articles. You can see the woman's race from the search results without ever having to open one.

Some of you have suggested that it was a deliberate omission by the media to not mention the attacker's race. Maybe it was but to what end? If you're trying to suppress that information, why put the video directly above your story? It's been my experience that most people look at pictures rather than read anyway.

The attacker yelled "take off your mask" before striking. Sounds like a Tucker fan.