What's new
By:

This made me kinda sad today...

NPC D4617 said:
The problem with Phillips is that he lied. In the CNN interview his exact words were " this young man PUT himself in front of me and wouldnt move" In the video you can clearly see that Sandman was standing in that one spot long before Phillips even got there.
Click to expand...

That makes Phillips wrong, but not necessarily lying. In the heat of the moment, with the rising tensions between the other two groups, it's quite possible his perception was not the same as what the video showed.

NPC D4617 said:
What is Sandman supposed to do there? Does he have to move?
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't have to move. Why wouldn't he move? Is the simple politeness of making way too much to ask?

NPC D4617 said:
Im so confused by this. What gives Phillips the right to make people move out of his way? What gives him the right to get that close to Sandman banging the drum, and then claim he is a victim?
Click to expand...

The same thing that gives Sandman the right to not move. Ask yourself why you are assuming Sandman has rights here that should not be questioned, and in the same post asking from where Phillips gets his rights.

Then, ask me again about what white privilege is.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
You're as delusional as the old man. Let's get the facts straight: He's the one playing the victim card, forcing these poor children to defend themselves from the true agressor.
Click to expand...

No I am not delusional. I am questioning the decision making of the adults who were in charge of this school group. And yes, I do think Phillips version leaves a lot to be desired.

This piece was written by someone who has experience encountering blacks associated with the Black Israelite "movement". I just put that in quotations because I have no real idea what to call them. A religious sect? I don't know. But the things I would like to know now all boil down to why the adults supervising the school group thought it was a good idea to let the boys engage the Black Israelites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...othing-justifies-what-covington-students-did/

I just saw the Today Show interview of Sandmann. He indicated that, in hindsight, he wished his school group had just moved along. In his statement a day or two ago, Sandmann indicated the group of 4 black demonstrators hurled racial insults at them. That's clear from the long version video, which was about an hour and a half in length(?). One guy in particular seems very agitated and seems to be doing most of the yelling at the students. Sandmann stated one student asked a chaparone if the students could drown out the Black protestors with school chants/cheers. And apparently the chaparone said yes.

So, I wonder, why would an adult in that climate decide that it was a good idea for the students to actually engage the black protestors?

Eventually, the students exit the scene. Sandmann stated on the Today interview that he wished they had just moved along to begin with. So why did the chaparones not make the decision to exit the scene in the first place? Even before Phillips showed up. And once the stare down with Phillips commenced, and you've got students yelling, laughing, a few performing the tomahawk chop, where the hell are the adult chaparones at that point?

Maybe it's just too easy for me to say, but if I'm the adult in charge of those boys, and there they all are being taunted and insulted by black protestors, my response is not going to be "sure, guys, go ahead and yell school cheers at the black protestors". In so many words, "sure, guys, let's escalate this thing". I'm pretty sure I'm going to say, "no, guys, c'mon, ignore them, let's just move along".

When I initially "softened" my interpretation of what I was seeing in the short version video, I still indicated that I did not find the boy's behavior "appropriate". I still feel that way. And I do make allowances for the fact that these are kids, juviniles. But they were supervised by adults. I would like to hear more from those adults. I want to know why they decided that it was an appropriate decision to remain on the scene and let the boys engage with a group of obviously agitated Black Israelites. And why those adults did nothing whatsoever when the encounter with Phillips unfolded.
 
Red said:
No I am not delusional. I am questioning the decision making of the adults who were in charge of this school group. And yes, I do think Phillips version leaves a lot to be desired.

This piece was written by someone who has experience encountering blacks associated with the Black Israelite "movement". I just put that in quotations because I have no real idea what to call them. A religious sect? I don't know. But the things I would like to know now all boil down to why the adults supervising the school group thought it was a good idea to let the boys engage the Black Israelites.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...othing-justifies-what-covington-students-did/

I just saw the Today Show interview of Sandmann. He indicated that, in hindsight, he wished his school group had just moved along. In his statement a day or two ago, Sandmann indicated the group of 4 black demonstrators hurled racial insults at them. That's clear from the long version video, which was about an hour and a half in length(?). One guy in particular seems very agitated and seems to be doing most of the yelling at the students. Sandmann stated one student asked a chaparone if the students could drown out the Black protestors with school chants/cheers. And apparently the chaparone said yes.

So, I wonder, why would an adult in that climate decide that it was a good idea for the students to actually engage the black protestors?

Eventually, the students exit the scene. Sandmann stated on the Today interview that he wished they had just moved along to begin with. So why did the chaparones not make the decision to exit the scene in the first place? Even before Phillips showed up. And once the stare down with Phillips commenced, and you've got students yelling, laughing, a few performing the tomahawk chop, where the hell are the adult chaparones at that point?

Maybe it's just too easy for me to say, but if I'm the adult in charge of those boys, and there they all are being taunted and insulted by black protestors, my response is not going to be "sure, guys, go ahead and yell school cheers at the black protestors". In so many words, "sure, guys, let's escalate this thing". I'm pretty sure I'm going to say, "no, guys, c'mon, ignore them, let's just move along".

When I initially "softened" my interpretation of what I was seeing in the short version video, I still indicated that I did not find the boy's behavior "appropriate". I still feel that way. And I do make allowances for the fact that these are kids, juviniles. But they were supervised by adults. I would like to hear more from those adults. I want to know why they decided that it was an appropriate decision to remain on the scene and let the boys engage with a group of obviously agitated Black Israelites. And why those adults did nothing whatsoever when the encounter with Phillips unfolded.
Click to expand...

But why not ask Phillips why he lied about how the events unfolded? Why not question him and his film crew why they lied about pretty much everything in order to get a story that never happened in the way they said it did? The person who claimed that the boys were claiming "build the wall!" to the old man, later concedes that she wasn't actually there at that moment. Hell, it turns out that Phillips isn't even a war vet as he claimed. Why is the burden on the boys? Why was absolutely nothing said about the Black Israelites who were the most egregious of all of the instigators? Thing is we ALL know why it was reported that way. Its just that some here are fine with that.

You don't get to put explosive allegations on the first page, then issue a "retraction" on page 23a and claim "journalism worked!" Get it right the first time. Every single "error" always leans one way. That is exact definition of "privilege," no? I hope those boys get large settlement checks from the moron news outlets that treated them unfairly. They don't fall under the "public person" clause.
 
gfzZ7B_UjhUDzwmJJSJpIxK2DXnfqqLqaghTW8t-MXQ.jpg
 
framer said:
But why not ask Phillips why he lied about how the events unfolded? Why not question him and his film crew why they lied about pretty much everything in order to get a story that never happened in the way they said it did? The person who claimed that the boys were claiming "build the wall!" to the old man, later concedes that she wasn't actually there at that moment. Hell, it turns out that Phillips isn't even a war vet as he claimed. Why is the burden on the boys? Why was absolutely nothing said about the Black Israelites who were the most egregious of all of the instigators? Thing is we ALL know why it was reported that way. Its just that some here are fine with that.

You don't get to put explosive allegations on the first page, then issue a "retraction" on page 23a and claim "journalism worked!" Get it right the first time. Every single "error" always leans one way. That is exact definition of "privilege," no? I hope those boys get large settlement checks from the moron news outlets that treated them unfairly. They don't fall under the "public person" clause.
Click to expand...
It was initially reported the way it was because that's the extent of the video that was first available. The reports were corrected fairly quickly and at this point you'll find significantly greater information presented about the incident. There is no indication at all that major news outlets intentionally withheld information or promoted a story that they knew to be false.

There has been no retraction. There was never a need for one. CNN has several stories on their front page that dig deeper into the incident. They aren't hiding from the truth at all.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/opinions/washington-dc-marches-national-divisions-maltby/index.html

When the first footage hit Twitter, it seemed to show a young, white, MAGA-hatted boy smirking in the face of a Native elder, as his comrades chanted aggressively. The left raced to condemn the boy and his classmates.

Then, further footage demonstrated that the boys had been provoked by the black activists calling them "crackers" and "incest children," alongside homophobic slurs. One of the young men involved made a statement saying his classmates had only chanted their high school "spirit chants" in response. The pendulum of public outrage, with which we should all now be wearily familiar, swung back. Now it was the right's turn to condemn the left as the agents of mob mentality and group think.
Click to expand...

And as the viewers, we too often see what we want to see.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account-native-american-maga-teens/index.html

The account claimed to belong to a California schoolteacher. Its profile photo was not of a schoolteacher, but of a blogger based in Brazil, CNN Business found. Twitter suspended the account soon after CNN Business asked about it.
Click to expand...


https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/us/maga-hat-teens-native-american-second-video/index.html

It was a moment in a bigger story that is still unfolding.
A new video that surfaced Sunday shows what happened before and after the encounter Friday in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington.
In the new video, another group taunts the students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky with disparaging and vulgar language. The group of black men, who identify as members of the Hebrew Israelites, also shout racist slurs at participants of the Indigenous Peoples Rally and other passersby.
Click to expand...

So this is not a case of burying the retraction. This is a case of intentionally misleading video being spread across the internet and then reported on by major news outlets. Nathan Phillips was interviewed, and had he been honest this would have been cleared up very quickly, but he fed into the false impression the first video presented. More information came out (the news media is not all knowing, if you can show me that they had proof that their reports were false at the time they aired them then show that) and none of the major news outlets hid from the truth.

I agree with you that Nathan Phillips should be considered a non-credible person. I'd even agree that he was likely intentionally dishonest and misleading. What were his motivations? I don't know for sure. But of the three groups in this incident I think those kids share the least amount of blame. Both the Hebrew Israelites and Nathan Phillips were the primary instigators, and that's a conclusion you'd likely come to if your one and only source of news was CNN.

Just a small aside, and a real question that I don't know the answer to. You mention Nathan Phillips film crew? My assumption is that this is video shot from a phone camera. Is there some source indicating that Nathan Phillips had a film crew?
 
^ I have this guy on ignore but read this post.

The news media didn't make up the claim the Nathan Phillips served in the Vietnam War. Nathan Phillips made that claim. I think later he started saying he was a "Vietnam era veteran" but even that is pretty misleading.

This idea that the news media has access to perfect information instantly is some kind of fantasy. News has always used interviews and sources to report stories, especially "breaking" stories. It took less than 24hrs for major news outlets to report on the misleading nature of the original video.

But all you consumers of actual fake news continue to use this as confirmation of your world view.
 
Bulletproof said:
^ I have this guy on ignore but read this post.

The news media didn't make up the claim the Nathan Phillips served in the Vietnam War. Nathan Phillips made that claim. I think later he started saying he was a "Vietnam era veteran" but even that is pretty misleading.

This idea that the news media has access to perfect information instantly is some kind of fantasy. News has always used interviews and sources to report stories, especially "breaking" stories. It took less than 24hrs for major news outlets to report on the misleading nature of the original video.

But all you consumers of actual fake news continue to use this as confirmation of your world view.
Click to expand...

Yeah, when Phillips was described as 64 years old, one of my first thoughts was exactly when was he in Vietnam? If he was born in 1954, it would have had to be toward the very end of that war....
 
scumbag joy baher of despicable global socialist programing the view admits they get it wrong because they desperatly want trump out of office! LOLZ that is why they always do snap judgement on right wing people. for a stupid scumbag she is right for once! maybe she gets to see the light!


lets not forget folks antifa had been violent and vandalist for months before mainstream media picked up on it! they endorsed them while they where beating up people
 
framer said:
But why not ask Phillips why he lied about how the events unfolded? Why not question him and his film crew why they lied about pretty much everything in order to get a story that never happened in the way they said it did? The person who claimed that the boys were claiming "build the wall!" to the old man, later concedes that she wasn't actually there at that moment. Hell, it turns out that Phillips isn't even a war vet as he claimed. Why is the burden on the boys? Why was absolutely nothing said about the Black Israelites who were the most egregious of all of the instigators? Thing is we ALL know why it was reported that way. Its just that some here are fine with that.

You don't get to put explosive allegations on the first page, then issue a "retraction" on page 23a and claim "journalism worked!" Get it right the first time. Every single "error" always leans one way. That is exact definition of "privilege," no? I hope those boys get large settlement checks from the moron news outlets that treated them unfairly. They don't fall under the "public person" clause.
Click to expand...

Well, you won't like my answer, but I don't care. First off, The Atlantic article helped me understand how editing can create an impression that can lead to confirmation bias.

In my instance, as an American citizen, during what amounts to the most divisive, hyper partisan climate in my lifetime(it does seem more divisive then the Vietnam era, but maybe the distancevin time just makes that era seem less disruptive to me), I saw what I wanted to see, or to be a bit fairer to myself, what fulfilled my expectations: MAGA supporters harassing a person of color.

Journalists are also citizens. Those who oppose MAGA as much as I do no doubt saw it the same way, and reported it that way. They should not have if they were acting as truly responsible journalists. They have more responsibility toward whatever the truth was then I do, as an opponent of MAGA, and everything that Trump stands for.

And here's where I think you won't like my point of view. We are at war in this country. And it's very clear there exists a press that is an adversarial press in relation to Trump and MAGA. And I assume those Trump and MAGA adversaries saw that original clip through the same lens of confirmation bias that I did. It led to the mistakes that we are talking about in this thread.

What I learned had to do with the ability of edited videos to go viral, and, in this particular instance, provide confirmation bias to those Americans opposed to MAGA/Trump. I hope I don't continue to jump the gun where viral videos are concerned going forward.

I do not expect the media to be perfect. I think the media hurt it's image in this incident. And anything that hurts the side that I am on in this war is regrettable. I don't like that this happened. It provides ammo for Trump to cry "fake news!" I don't like that because I have felt Trump is the most unqualified dolt to ever sit in that Oval Office. This is a war. As Biden put it some time ago, "this is a war for the soul of America".

Trump has governed through bullying. He bullies his domestic enemies. He bullies our allies. He praises dictators. I want him gone. I do not regard bullying as a quality of true leadership. We have reached our nadir where the office of the presidency is concerned.

The adversarial press will make mistakes in its eagerness to go after Trump. Regrettable.
But keep going after him. Do not let up.
 
Bulletproof said:
It was initially reported the way it was because that's the extent of the video that was first available. The reports were corrected fairly quickly and at this point you'll find significantly greater information presented about the incident. There is no indication at all that major news outlets intentionally withheld information or promoted a story that they knew to be false.

There has been no retraction. There was never a need for one. CNN has several stories on their front page that dig deeper into the incident. They aren't hiding from the truth at all.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/opinions/washington-dc-marches-national-divisions-maltby/index.html





https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/tech/twitter-suspends-account-native-american-maga-teens/index.html




https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/us/maga-hat-teens-native-american-second-video/index.html



So this is not a case of burying the retraction. This is a case of intentionally misleading video being spread across the internet and then reported on by major news outlets. Nathan Phillips was interviewed, and had he been honest this would have been cleared up very quickly, but he fed into the false impression the first video presented. More information came out (the news media is not all knowing, if you can show me that they had proof that their reports were false at the time they aired them then show that) and none of the major news outlets hid from the truth.

I agree with you that Nathan Phillips should be considered a non-credible person. I'd even agree that he was likely intentionally dishonest and misleading. What were his motivations? I don't know for sure. But of the three groups in this incident I think those kids share the least amount of blame. Both the Hebrew Israelites and Nathan Phillips were the primary instigators, and that's a conclusion you'd likely come to if your one and only source of news was CNN.

Just a small aside, and a real question that I don't know the answer to. You mention Nathan Phillips film crew? My assumption is that this is video shot from a phone camera. Is there some source indicating that Nathan Phillips had a film crew?
Click to expand...

"Film crew" being the people who shot and distributed the video. The people who provided the quotes that went along with the original story. It was quite clearly a setup. They were working with Phillips. I have run large political events and we would have people to scan the crowd and mark the people who were obviously there to "make a story." It is pretty common, they are pretty obvious, and there were probably multiple groups like this at the march. We would have signs that said, "Don't talk to these people!" that someone would follow the instigators with. Eventually they would leave without incident. These high school kids and their leaders wouldn't have been educated on that, which is why, along with their hats, they were targeted.

Thing is, that the press that was present knows about this too, which is why they can't simply be excused of "being deceived." They got the story they wanted. If there was no threat of being sued, they wouldn't have backed down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top