|
Post by Christine on Dec 15, 2016 8:18:58 GMT -5
Conversely, it's likely there is harassment that goes unreported.
I was at the convenience store the other day. It's owned by a Muslim family. The dad, an elderly man, was behind the counter and a customer was cashing in a lotto ticket and buying more. The customer claimed the Muslim man hadn't given him the right amount for his winnings. A somewhat heated back-and-forth ensued (I suddenly became enthralled with a selection of gummy bears at the far end of the store) until finally the owner said, "I have a camera! I will show you on the camera!" and the customer finally backed off.
When he left, I went up to the counter to pay for my purchases, and the owner was visibly upset. He said several things almost to himself along the lines of, "They are always doing this. I don't want their money, I just want to make my own money! I do not take their money!" (I interjected with "absolutely" and "of course" and whatnot.)
I can't help but wonder if whoever "they" are would try to pull those stunts on a big burly white guy behind the counter. Maybe "they" are just assholes to everyone, but I tend to think there's a lot of discrimination and harassment going on that we don't necessarily ever hear about.
Doesn't mean people should lie, of course. But incidences of lying don't mean there isn't a problem.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 15, 2016 9:07:44 GMT -5
Absolutely. For most any crime you can name, there are huge numbers of incidents that don't get reported. There's no doubt about this. And when it comes to things that border on the criminal, there are even more. But that's always been the case, unfortunately. And marginalized groups have always been subjected to more slurs and more harassment than the members of the non-marginalized group or groups. And of course shit flows downhill, meaning there is an hierarchy to this kind of stuff (again, unfortunately). And that hierarchy can change, based on the moment, as well.
But noting the above doesn't sell papers (or get clicks). Claiming that there's a "wave" of anti-Muslim crimes does. So do specific stories with sympathetic victims that drum up outrage.
Allowing that there is a problem--that is not just a facet of the same problem that's always been there--the issue of approach matters, imo. Jumping on juicy bits immediately, without any attempt at verification, is the wrong approach. Because if those bits turn out to fabricated, that approach will--as Cass noted--have the exact opposite effect.
Seriously, I'm a thinking person. I know there are plenty of assholes out there who would behave as badly as the imaginary guys in the original story did. So when I hear that story, I'm sympathetic. I want to believe it's true, because I don't want to believe that someone would make it up (even though I'd prefer that such things never happened at all). Then comes the turn and I find out it was all bs, drummed up by someone looking for attention. My sympathy meter goes to zero and next time I hear a similar story, I'm going to be a little more skeptical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 11:18:29 GMT -5
I have to note -- late last night my "New York" newsfeed on google news was full of this story. But this morning, the top stories are "which city should you visit, London or New York?" and "New York's most popular plant can kill you and your pets". This retraction doesn't even make the cut -- if you didn't happen to catch the retraction last night, it feels like the story would have just dropped down the memory hole.
Which might be fine, if it hadn't gotten so much publicity in the first place.
For days this thing was plastered on the news and made a powerful impression. I'm wondering how many will remember it as true and cite it as an example of anti-muslim hate in NYC, and use it to feed anti-Trump frenzy.
Except, of course, by those looking to feed a "those liberals are goddamn liars" frenzy. They'll remember.
The outrage train on both sides wins. Truth loses.
There's plenty to be outraged about in this world. Why not wait and be sure outrage is warranted before going into a frenzy?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 15, 2016 11:20:58 GMT -5
That's an outrageous suggestion!
*iz outraged*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 11:37:09 GMT -5
I iz outraged by your outrage!
Seriously, I have a wee bit of a personal thing about this story. I quietly noted my doubts about it early on (and my reasons for having those doubts) to a couple of real life friends -- who promptly jumped all over me, reproaching me for doubting the poor, poor victim.
I am waiting to see if either of them has the grace to say "yeah, maybe you were right not to immediately leap on the outrage train."
The thing is, if you don't jump right on the outrage train, too many are only too ready to smear you with the "you're blind to racism or tacitly supporting the racists" etc. brush.
And yeah, that's not really the case. Had this incident occurred, I'd be right with them condemning the three white Trump supporters. Given I thought there were solid reasons to doubt they existed, the most I could say was, "well, if this is true, it's really terrible." And I can agree that anti-Muslim prejudice exists and is deplorable.
But that's just not enough for some. You must instantly believe and screech in outrage at each and every allegation of such behavior, or you are part of the problem.
To me, they are part of the problem -- the problem that truth seems to be lost amid spin, and fewer and fewer of us care as long as the spin goes our way.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 15, 2016 11:38:26 GMT -5
I had to dig a little, but Fox posted an update story. And they said this in the last paragraph:
Why is the news media so lazy these days? No corroborating sources, and no qualifiers like mentioned above if there are no corroborating sources. Not good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 11:48:39 GMT -5
I also have to say, despite the fact this girl fibbed, wasted the police's time, stirred up a frenzy and very much fed it with her statements to the media, I feel sorry for her.
She's young, I'm betting pretty sheltered. She started with a fib because she broke her curfew, but my hunch is she got caught up in the frenzy and lost herself in it. Probably why she ran away.
If the media had been more circumspect, if the outrage train hadn't screeched off the tracks, this would be a dumb mistake she'd live down. Now, it's all over the damn internet, with her name and face.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 15, 2016 11:57:23 GMT -5
She posted on Facebook describing the incident in detail. Interestingly, although most of the comments are supportive, several were very sure she was lying. How'd they know that? I will try to find the post. Also, I came across this Facebook post which illustrates what Cass was just saying about New York: Edited to Add: I can no longer find her Facebook (not surprisingly). Many news outlets are posting about the lie. And I suppose i'm doing the same thing I accuse the news outlets of doing by posting the above Facebook link without corroboration, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 15, 2016 12:17:39 GMT -5
Social media long ago started the slide to chaos. It won't end any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 15, 2016 12:33:23 GMT -5
To tell you the truth, I thought about posting this story days ago (I.e., when it was being reported as truth), but didn't because it smelled fishy to me. In case I was wrong, I didn't want to express my doubts about the poor girl's story on the 'net. And if I was right, I didn't want to contribute to fake news. Honestly? I have many times read one of these incidents - about a horrific rape, or racist attack, or verbal abuse hurled by random gangs of (usually) white dudes/conservatives/deplorables at (insert marginalized group here) - and thought "There is something not quite right about this story." But I rarely say anything, because, you know - the only thing worse than a rapist is someone who doubts a rape victim. To be clear, I think most people, when they report that an offense has been committed against them, are telling the truth. But I get very skeptical when a story just too perfectly matches the confirmation bias of a particular narrative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 12:57:59 GMT -5
There's that, and then there's my knowledge of the mood/composition of the city, that particular train at that particular hour, etc. If these three alleged men were armed, maybe people in the car would be afraid to intervene. But they'd sure as hell be speaking up afterward. And since there is nothing in the girl's story to indicate a weapon? yeah, I assure you a train full of New Yorkers would NOT allow three drunk Trump supporters harass an 18-year-old girl this way, much less walk away and not report it. After a day or so went by without witnesses, without video of three drunk white guys getting on or exiting a train...yeah, I was really, really doubting.
Contrary to the impression many seem to have of New Yorkers, I think we're pretty ready as a rule to jump in and intervene. I've seen it happen a few times -- and I've seen a lot of people who needed help get help from strangers. I've done both myself. Sure we have some bad eggs. Sure we have some racists, etc.. But yeah, a seething hotbed of anti-Muslim Trump supporters we assuredly are not.
I tend to generally believe victims, unless there is some reason to doubt. Here, I thought there was.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 15, 2016 19:47:13 GMT -5
Absolutely. For most any crime you can name, there are huge numbers of incidents that don't get reported. There's no doubt about this. And when it comes to things that border on the criminal, there are even more. But that's always been the case, unfortunately. And marginalized groups have always been subjected to more slurs and more harassment than the members of the non-marginalized group or groups. And of course shit flows downhill, meaning there is an hierarchy to this kind of stuff (again, unfortunately). And that hierarchy can change, based on the moment, as well. But noting the above doesn't sell papers (or get clicks). Claiming that there's a "wave" of anti-Muslim crimes does. So do specific stories with sympathetic victims that drum up outrage. Allowing that there is a problem--that is not just a facet of the same problem that's always been there--the issue of approach matters, imo. Jumping on juicy bits immediately, without any attempt at verification, is the wrong approach. Because if those bits turn out to fabricated, that approach will--as Cass noted--have the exact opposite effect. Seriously, I'm a thinking person. I know there are plenty of assholes out there who would behave as badly as the imaginary guys in the original story did. So when I hear that story, I'm sympathetic. I want to believe it's true, because I don't want to believe that someone would make it up (even though I'd prefer that such things never happened at all). Then comes the turn and I find out it was all bs, drummed up by someone looking for attention. My sympathy meter goes to zero and next time I hear a similar story, I'm going to be a little more skeptical. I am disgusted by the media in general. I haven't turned on cable news since about 3 days after the election. (Had not watched before election season, either; I prefer to read.) I watched CNN on election night, and I wanted to throttle them all for forcing me to watch them "perform" so that I could get minute-to-minute information. I swear, Blitzer was hyperventilating by 6:30 EST and part of me figured it wasn't worth this nonsense, but, no, I had to keep watching, all the while thinking, Is this the best we can do? Is this news, or reality TV? (Also tried to watch both Fox and MSNBC - both worse, if that's possible.) I'm back to print-only now. And as I'm sure folks here do, the first thing I look at when I click on a link is what media site it came from. From there I may not even bother reading. If I don't recognize the site, I proceed with skepticism, notice the ads, the other articles featured, etc. It seems most times there is bias one way or another, and often it's blatantly obvious, with subtler cues for the less obvious ones. (Side question: Are there any unbiased sites anywhere?) However, I do want to reserve this skepticism (and disgust) for the media, not for individual, ordinary people relaying their experiences (which can be a very scary thing to do for a lot of people). Yeah, there will always be liars/attention-seekers, but I hold out hope that most people don't actually want to make up shit for nationwide attention. This story hasn't convinced me to become a skeptic in that regard. Anyhoo. The worst part of it all is that this story probably helped push people who are literally looking for reasons to discredit discrimination across the board, or at least minimize it, further in that direction. People who are not thinking people.
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 15, 2016 19:53:20 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 20:35:11 GMT -5
I think most, if not all, sources have a lean -- it's a question of how pronounced the lean is and how much journalistic integrity the publication has.
For a while, I had paper subscriptions to both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal -- two reputable sources, but one lants a bit left and the other a bit right. (The "a bit" is relative to other sources.) It was always interesting to see which stories were featured most prominently in each, and how they were presented. Now I don't have paper subscriptions, but when I have time, I try to read really important stories in a couple of places, just as a bit of a bias check. If nothing else, it's often interesting to see the differences.
I have an aquaintance who gets essentially all her news from opinion pieces on HuffPo and DailyKos. She does not see why I think that's a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Dec 15, 2016 20:46:21 GMT -5
Yes, I like both NYT and WSJ, keeping in mind the slant (and they kind of cancel each other out, heh). Also as per RT's link, Reuters is middle, as I'd gathered. I think NPR is close to middle as well. I shouldn't have been so hyperbolic on the matter.
|
|