What's new
By:
Filters

This made me kinda sad today...

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?
 
FAKE NEWS AT IT AGAIN

jnuw3U7l.png
 
^ 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.
 
framer said:
"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.
Click to expand...
What press was present? What did those specif press people report?

"The press" is not a single thing.

You make a significant claim but provide nothing to substantiate it. Is it just so obvious that we should all assume it to be true?

Oh, and in a video I just watched of the incident I did see what appeared to be Native Americans with video cameras (not phone cameras) so I'll go with you on calling that a film crew.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting question, to be sure. But it’s a rather unusual focus in the larger context.

Perhaps let’s take a different angle on this. Instead of male high school kids waiting for a bus, let’s say it was a girl’s high school cheerleading team in cheer outfits waiting for the bus. And instead of Black Israelites yelling racist and homophobic slurs, let’s say it is a group of frat boys cat calling and making vulgar sexual comments. What would happen if one were to raise the question as to why the girls felt it appropriate to be wearing revealing clothing in front of sex-starved college males? What kind of chaperone would leave a bunch of “scantily clad” girls in front college males who would get worked up by it? Now, yes, why a chaperone would do that may indeed show poor judgement, but do you think that would be the appropriate direction to look at that situation? Is that a fair assessment — at all — of the situation, that this is really just a chaperone problem? Would that question be able to make it past the “OMG victim blaming” filter? Do the frat boys get the pass because “it’s just what they do” and all blame lies on the feet of the chaperones and the girls for “dressing scantily”?
 
infection said:
It’s an interesting question, to be sure. But it’s a rather unusual focus in the larger context.

Perhaps let’s take a different angle on this. Instead of male high school kids waiting for a bus, let’s say it was a girl’s high school cheerleading team in cheer outfits waiting for the bus. And instead of Black Israelites yelling racist and homophobic slurs, let’s say it is a group of frat boys cat calling and making vulgar sexual comments. What would happen if one were to raise the question as to why the girls felt it appropriate to be wearing revealing clothing in front of sex-starved college males? What kind of chaperone would leave a bunch of “scantily clad” girls in front college males who would get worked up by it? Now, yes, why a chaperone would do that may indeed show poor judgement, but do you think that would be the appropriate direction to look at that situation? Is that a fair assessment — at all — of the situation, that this is really just a chaperone problem? Would that question be able to make it past the “OMG victim blaming” filter? Do the frat boys get the pass because “it’s just what they do” and all blame lies on the feet of the chaperones and the girls for “dressing scantily”?
Click to expand...
Or yet a better scenario:

A class of inner-city youth who are predominately AA are waiting for a bus while a bunch of white nationalists are hurling racist insults. What were the chaperones thinking, right?
 
Red said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem that you have is that you think this "war" is a product of Trump. It isn't. Trump is a symptom of it. The press "picked a side" way before now. They have been making these "mistakes" for decades, Trump notwithstanding. People voted for Trump because they tired of the press turning Bush, McCain, and Romney into Nazis when it served their purpose. People got tired of the tongue baths that Obama received from the press. History didn't start two years ago.

The media has long served a purpose in America, they are just unable to serve that purpose now which is why we are where we are at.
 
framer said:
The problem that you have is that you think this "war" is a product of Trump. It isn't. Trump is a symptom of it. The press "picked a side" way before now. They have been making these "mistakes" for decades, Trump notwithstanding. People voted for Trump because they tired of the press turning Bush, McCain, and Romney into Nazis when it served their purpose. People got tired of the tongue baths that Obama received from the press. History didn't start two years ago.

The media has long served a purpose in America, they are just unable to serve that purpose now which is why we are where we are at.
Click to expand...
Having a bias and being fake are two different things.

You've made claims that the media intentionally mislead on this story and only corrected the story for fear of being sued. You provided nothing at all to back that up.
 
ONE LOVE said:
Do you think people are just zombies being led by what someone says and don't have their own thoughts or cannot control their own actions though?

How long can you keep blaming someone and not yourself?
Click to expand...

Or we can blame both? Not every bad deed has a single root cause. The world is not black or white.
 
Bulletproof said:
What press was present? What did those specif press people report?

"The press" is not a single thing.

You make a significant claim but provide nothing to substantiate it. Is it just so obvious that we should all assume it to be true?

Oh, and in a video I just watched of the incident I did see what appeared to be Native Americans with video cameras (not phone cameras) so I'll go with you on calling that a film crew.
Click to expand...

So there was no press present at the largest march of the year? Seriously? And, yes, the press is a community. They are largely homogenous in their political and social views and get their "news" largely from the same sources. Are you implying that "reporting" on a youtube clip exonerates them from their responsibilities to get the story right? It doesn't. It actually confirms that they wanted a premeditated outcome. All the stories had quotes, did those quotes come from the youtube video? Reporters interviewed Phillips only, who was lying, and reported it as gospel. The original stories also had other quotes, who were also lying, as well. Where did those people come from? They were likely referred by Phillips. They were there to make a story with Phillips. Needless to say, that isn't the way you do journalism. . .
 
Violence and hate speech by Antifa radicals is wrong
Violence and hate speech by White Nationalists is wrong.

Why y'all taking sides?

Just join condemn radicals, violence and hate speech wherever it happens.
 
framer said:
So there was no press present at the largest march of the year? Seriously? And, yes, the press is a community. They are largely homogenous in their political and social views and get their "news" largely from the same sources. Are you implying that "reporting" on a youtube clip exonerates them from their responsibilities to get the story right? It doesn't. It actually confirms that they wanted a premeditated outcome. All the stories had quotes, did those quotes come from the youtube video? Reporters interviewed Phillips only, who was lying, and reported it as gospel. The original stories also had other quotes, who were also lying, as well. Where did those people come from? They were likely referred by Phillips. They were there to make a story with Phillips. Needless to say, that isn't the way you do journalism. . .
Click to expand...
If there was press there then who were they and what did they report? You're making assumptions. I'm not going to have a discussion based on your unsubstantiated biases.

Again "the press" is not a single thing, so if a news outlet was on scene and had access to information that they ignored so that they could report a misleading account of what happened name them. If you can't then you're just telling stories that you want to believe.
 
Today I Learned:

The press is in all places at all times and has perfect knowledge of all things. If they ever get a story wrong it is because they are lying.
 
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...

Cry harder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top