The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Eric:
| Quote | | So, given arguendo that Bill's theory about media bias is correct, what are the ramifications of that bias, what should be done about it, and what social ill would be remedied by correcting that bias? |
No, you don't understand. Russell's just conceding that majority-on-minority crimes get more ink than minority-on-majority crimes. If I understand him correctly, he does not concede my explanation for that "fact" arguendo, de facto, or el segundo. And Faid sure as #### won't go for it. I realise that you want to jump ahead to my remedy, but I'm trying to show that my model actually explains the media's actions better than Russell's "financial feedback loop" hypothesis, or whatever he calls it.
Faid:
| Quote | Sorry for the late reply... In the risk of complicating this even further, soryy, Ghost, no.
You see, after all that's been discussed and all I've read, I'm indeed inclined to agree that "mainstream" media (those more involved in the higher rates competition, after all) tend to overemphasise "maj-on-min" crimes, and not underemphasise "min-on-maj" crimes (which I think is a completely different thing, and those two are not mutually exclusive). Also: I think this for American media. |
Since my model relies on the bolded claim, I don't know what to say. I would be willing to restrict my complaint to the American media. But since Russell and (I hope) Eric do concede both parts, I don't want to waste Hammerhead Hagan on a lone dissent, however principled, especially since it will lead to endless battles about the distinction between "underemphasizing" minority crimes, versus "overselling" majority crime. For example: does the national media's refusal to explicitly compare the Haggerty and Diallo cases count as an "under", an "over", or a combination of the two (which is my hunch, because in order to "sell" the Diallo case as racial bias, the media must ignore similar cases that don't fit the theory). In addition, your position compels you to find a post hoc reason to disqualify any case that threatens your position: nope, not enough bullets, not enough blows, the attackers didn't use enough weapons, the attackers used too many weapons, the victim wasn't crippled, the victim was crippled in a boring way, there wasn't any videotape, the videotape was inconclusive, there weren't enough attackers, the attackers didn't use enough slurs, this social issue wasn't involved, that social issue was too involved etc, etc, etc. No matter how similar, an excuse is always at hand, and this renders your argument unfalsifiable. And since numerical disparities don't prove "underrepresentation", I can't even compare groups of similar cases. I'm not accusing you of being dishonest - actually, I find you very honest - but I've seen how even the best people behave when their world view is at stake, and I don't feel like going on a snipe hunt. Once again, I'm not trying to smear you, but I've been in this position too many times already.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
?
)
