We're a "Nation of cowards"

[lutherblsstt]

Not accessible.

You have to click the link,not just look at it.

The first three citations turn up diddly **** on Google.

Try Google scholar

What I did find tends to suggest that implicit bias suggests people will be more likely to judge a black criminal and cops more likely to shoot a black than a white. You could tie this to media portrayals I guess. You could also tie it to the documentated fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than other races and are thus more likely to be in a situation with law enforcement, and are this correctly judged more dangerous by others.

Question: where is the control group? You see, when a dishonest moron designs a study to get the conclusion he wants, he picks the above model. If he wants to be honest, there would be at least one additional scenario, testing the response of a group shown a sketch with a white person behaving badly, moronicaly, criminally, etc., to see that affected their judgement of the guilt of the assumed white offenders when presented with the vignette later.

I'm sure this vitriol towards "dishonest morons" only applies to studies that contradict your pre-conceived ideas.Read the whole study,I provided a link.

All this quoted 'study' proves, if anything, is that media portayals of race may affect decisions/judgements immediately following exposure. It says nothing about long term effects, if any. It says nothing about whether similar effects were found for other races, likley because the ******* who designed the study wanted to assume his conclusion. Unless you test for and rule out similar responses to other races this study says absolutely diddly **** specific about blacks and the media.

That is your way of distorting what they obviously highlight,quating from the actual study "Taken together, these studies suggest that disparagement of social groups through humor (e.g., comical stereotypical portrayals of social out-groups) may indeed create a climate of tolerance of discrimination by providing cues that discrimination is not serious or is not to be examined critically."

Once more says diddly **** about the point because, at least as you quote the findings, it looks like the putz who designed the study forgot to use controls again and forgot to not assume his own findings and let that slant the study design. What did the TV tell these kids about whites, about asians, about latinos? Did the study bother to check, or is this just another "Do you still beat your wife?" approach to research that you seem to favor so far?

Nice smear on a study you obviously did not read in its entirety.

Once more, anything from this century? I highly doubt any if all of the shows they studied are even still on the air which kind of makes the findings a bit useless.

Most,if not all of the shows are still shown on cable to this day.

You might want to throw some " in here or a credit or link to Invalid Link Removed from which you copied and pasted this bit.

Actually at the top of that part of the post you will find the citation as such "Effects of stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266-275",see that's what you get when you skim.

Here's another one that's fun: "What about interracial murder? The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) include the race of the victim and offender, and make it possible to calculate rates of interracial murder. In 2002, blacks were 16 times more likely to murder W&H than the reverse. SHR statistics from 1976 to 2002 tell us blacks murdered 26,727 W&H during those 26 years, and W&H murdered 10,207 blacks, making the black-on-W&H murder rate 17 times that of the W&H-on-black murder rate."
Color of Crime, 2005

"The FBI classifies Hispanics, Arabs and others as "Caucasians". The "White" figure above therefore does not reflect actual White crime rates, and is significantly inflated."

Source: Crime in the United States, 2004, Table 2.7


"According to the U.S. Census Bureau , African Americans numbered about 35 million -- just over 12 percent of the total population -- in 2005. Males made up 85 percent of all Black murder victims. Another demographic indicated that more than half (51%) of Black homicide victims were between the ages of 17 and 29.

The report indicates that 93 percent of Black murder victims and 85 percent of White murder victims (in single victim/single offender matches) were slain by someone of their own race.

It states, “About four-fifths of Black victims of nonfatal violence perceived the offenders to be Black. About 12 percent of Black victims perceived the offender to be White, while about eight percent thought the offender was neither Black nor White.”

Violence in America has the remarkable characteristic of being done by those who are close to us. Prevailing perspectives are not always founded on solid perceptions. Crime for the most part is intra-racial (not inter-racial, as many fears and false reports present).

Invalid Link Removed

Profiling like on the New Jersey turnpike where, "The PublicS ervice Research Institute in Maryland observed 40,000 cars on the turnpike and found blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites. The disproportion was even greater for people driving 90 miles per hour or more. While blacks were 25 percent of speeders, they were 23 percent of those stopped by police, again a figure that shows, if anything, police are less rigorous about stopping blacks than people of other races."
The Color of Crime, 2005 - Are Cops Racist, PSRI, 2002

THE STORIES, THE STATISTICS, AND THE LAW:
WHY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK" MATTERS

David A. Harris**

84 Minnesota Law Review 265-326
Invalid Link Removed

Ah, finally some sources. Of course since nothing is really referenced there's no way to tell if what you're citing actually supports your claim. You might want to credit Invalid Link Removed here, as he seems to have done most of your writing for you.

Are you sure I amnot Tim Wise writing under s pseudonym??

look up Luther Blissett Invalid Link Removed) Mr. Google:laugh:

And here is Invalid Link Removed which shows how he ****s up his analysis majorly to try and make PC myths hold when they plainly don't.

Here is

Profiles in Distortion:

Misusing Data to Justify Racism and Privilege in Policing

An Analysis of Traffic Stops, Race and Media Deception in Nashville, Tennessee
Invalid Link Removed

 

[EasyEJL]

Are you sure I amnot Tim Wise writing under s pseudonym??

look up Luther Blissett Invalid Link Removed Mr. Google:laugh:

well, so long as you take the whole thing to heart, thats ok

December 1999 marked the end of the LBP's Five Year Plan. All the "veterans" committed a symbolic Seppuku[4]

oh wait, but symbolic isn't much use, nevermind.


So as a totally serious question to you all here.

Like I wrote earlier I have good and bad workers here from all races, but the blunt truth is the majority of bad workers, and by bad I mean people who mouth off to their bosses, consistently show up late, finish work late if at all, etc., are blacks.

Now you all jumped on him over his racism there. But my question is, did he say that it was them being black that made them do that? You are drawing a causal relationship yourselves, that isn't necessarily what he was stating. If his company for instance made a large effort to recruit from poor inner city areas, isn't it also possible that a majority of these people are also more likely to be from teen mothers, absentee father homes, lower income levels, poorer education, relying on public transportation etc and that those are more of the causal part and the black part is a correlation only?

I'm not trying to state whether it is or isn't, just asking as a theoretical question.

 

[strategicmove]

Seriously, can't there be one of these discussions without the name-calling and e-thug mentality? Not only is it bothersome, it's childish and doesn't make your posts any more valid or convincing. This wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

Awesome post! :thumbsup:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

And the answer to your questions CDP is NO I won't answer your questions or explain myself to you. Your bigotry is oozing from your post, and it is amusing to me how embittered you are when your Euopean ancestors control most of the world and still do. But it will never be enough, you always want more, reeking havoc around the globe and rapping the land of it's resources and forcing your culture and religion everywhere from Africa to the Artic. Your the very type of employer that makes my life more difficult. But beware times are changing, and not all whites hold your views.

However, you are right the most dangerous men in America are black men... educated black men. Because you damn sure aint gonna whoop us in athletics or entertainment. The highest paid actor in the world is a african-american. And so is our nations chief law enforcement officer. And so is your president. We are becoming a force to be Reckoned with in America and abroad, and there is nothing you can do about it. And no matter how much money you have, and how much power you hold, it won't make your pecker grow. I'm done.

Black Power

How pathetic.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Let me get this straight,you understood me saying "get serious and treat discrimination like the crime it is" to mean "get tough on the "crime" of affirmative action"??????????

Specifically see post #211

Apparently I'm too dumb to decipher your plan of action. Break it down for me like I was a fifth grader.

Can you just succinctly say what needs to be done by the US government to end racism?

Put it in a list like this so I can understand it:

1.
2.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

A bird could randomly **** on your head and you'd likely find a way to blame white people for it.

Invalid Link Removed


Now what do you do?


:lol:



Black Power.

 

[CDB]

You have to click the link,not just look at it.

No ****?! Wow, ya know I did that and I got one page of an article, possibly a study?, that isn't available online...

Try Google scholar

Why, so I can cut and paste people's work unattributed like you do?

I'm sure this vitriol towards "dishonest morons" only applies to studies that contradict your pre-conceived ideas.Read the whole study,I provided a link.

No, it also applies to people stupid enough to not see the critical flaws in the study, the latter of which is the point you avoid. Of course if you show people a bunch of flicks saying people from group X behave in such a way and then ask them to just who is likely to behave that way, they'll pick people from group X. You can't scientifically say that is a unique reaction to group X unless you rule out similar responses to other groups despite the same pre conditioning with media showing members of those groups behaving in a certain way. Something you and the study's architect conveniently miss. This is like me playing Nightmare on Elm Street for people and then proclaiming I've discovered the holy grail of discrimination when it turns out burn victims in cowboy hats creep them out for a short while afterward. Unless I also show them Friday the 13th and don't get the same reaction from them toward guys wearing hockey masks and carrying large knives and gardening tools, I haven't proved **** about specific bias against burn victims. Get a clue.

That is your way of distorting what they obviously highlight,quating from the actual study "Taken together, these studies suggest that disparagement of social groups through humor (e.g., comical stereotypical portrayals of social out-groups) may indeed create a climate of tolerance of discrimination by providing cues that discrimination is not serious or is not to be examined critically."

No, it is my way of saying the study doesn't show what you want it/think it shows. Because for one, again any similar affect for other races isn't ruled out, and two, no long term effects were even attempted to be measured, and three, thirty yeard old media studies aren't relevant in an enviroment where the media changes year to year. If someone were to come out with a similar study that said whites were represented as racist in black viewed/controlled media and that influenced black opinions about whites, you'd tear it apart and rightly so for the very same reasons. It's a bullshit study that wouldn't contribute a nit of worth to the discussion.

Nice smear on a study you obviously did not read in its entirety.

Justified smear on a piece of ****.

Most,if not all of the shows are still shown on cable to this day.

Care to take a guess as to audience penetration and relevance? Half the people on the street in the US can't tell you who the vice president is, but you think they'll know Fred Sanford and Lammant?

Actually at the top of that part of the post you will find the citation as such "Effects of stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266-275",see that's what you get when you skim.

No, I saw that and guess what? If you're copying and pasting from a website you say that's what you're doing, you don't look up the reference of a study/article you've likely never read and plop it in to make yourself look more scholarly. You didn't even cite it correctly according to guidelines if I remember them correctly. So, either do it right or do it honestly, or don't ****ing do it at all. Try writing out some of your own thoughts, if they exist.

"The FBI classifies Hispanics, Arabs and others as "Caucasians". The "White" figure above therefore does not reflect actual White crime rates, and is significantly inflated."

Source: Crime in the United States, 2004, Table 2.7

No, it is inflated. Significantly inflated would mean you had access to information showing a further breakdown of crimes by race, which you don't, and could make that judgement of significance. And this would not be a problem if the PC crowd weren't trying to slant the data anyway. If you're going to study race you don't use methods that obfuscate race, unless of course you want to keep one side of the debate murky while making difinitive conclusions about the side you want kept clear.

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau , African Americans numbered about 35 million -- just over 12 percent of the total population -- in 2005. Males made up 85 percent of all Black murder victims. Another demographic indicated that more than half (51%) of Black homicide victims were between the ages of 17 and 29.

The report indicates that 93 percent of Black murder victims and 85 percent of White murder victims (in single victim/single offender matches) were slain by someone of their own race.

It states, “About four-fifths of Black victims of nonfatal violence perceived the offenders to be Black. About 12 percent of Black victims perceived the offender to be White, while about eight percent thought the offender was neither Black nor White.”

Violence in America has the remarkable characteristic of being done by those who are close to us. Prevailing perspectives are not always founded on solid perceptions. Crime for the most part is intra-racial (not inter-racial, as many fears and false reports present).

Invalid Link Removed

Most crime is intra racial, which is why if you want to examine this subject in particular you examine inter racial crime to see how groups behave toward each other. Nothing in the above negates any of the previous quotes from TCoC. There is also the NVCS study:

The NCVS also permits an examination of interracial crime from a different angle. Figure 20 tells us, for example, that of all violent crimes committed by blacks, 45 percent were against whites, 43 percent against blacks, and ten percent against Hispanics. Blacks therefore commit slightly more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Unlike an analysis of interracial crime—in which increased segregation decreases opportunities for interracial crime for blacks and whites equally—the proportion of victims of black criminals who are white is very much influenced by segregation. Criminals tend to prey on people in their neighborhoods,43 and underclass blacks who commit violent crimes are likely to live in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly black. Their friends and associates are likely to be black, and the people they meet in chance encounters are likely to be black. A large number of white victims suggests targeting of whites.

As Figure 21 shows, “whites” commit only a small percentage of their violent crimes against blacks—only one percent of rapes and three percent of all violent crimes. Since blacks make up 13 percent of the population, this is well below the rate expected by chance encounter. Furthermore, Figure 22 shows that blacks commit a substantial percentage
of all crimes committed against whites—17 percent of all violent crimes against whites, and 45 percent of robberies.

The one violent crime for which blacks have a relatively small number of white victims is murder. Only 16 percent of the victims of black murderers are W&H.44 Murder is the crime in which offender and victim are most likely to know each other. For violent black criminals, 16 percent may be a realistic figure for the percentage of their acquaintances
or neighbors who are white or Hispanic. If so, when the percentage of their victims who are W&H is significantly higher than that, it may suggest deliberate targeting of non-blacks.

So the unavoidable question remains, if crimes are committed on a mostly opportunistic basis and races tend to self segregate, why do blacks tend to commit way more violent crimes against whites/hispanics than would be expected by mere exposure and opportunism?

THE STORIES, THE STATISTICS, AND THE LAW:
WHY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK" MATTERS

David A. Harris**

84 Minnesota Law Review 265-326
Invalid Link Removed

Which conflicts with the PSRI study which, using radar and vehicle snap shots to identify speed and race respectively, shows that blacks were twice as likely to speed than whites. The Lamberth study, while widely used, suffers from one particularly massive problem: it defines violators of the traffic code so widely the whole damn driving public is included. He then uses the traffic code to back this up because it is damn near impossible to drive even a short way not offend some how. This however does not take into account how cops observe and decide who to stop in a turnpike setting. Or, in other words, Lamberth put the cart before the horse by assuming racism and treating all traffic violations as one big homogenous blob of **** to manufacture an equivalent violtion rate among blacks and whites when that's simply not the case. Any attempt to aggregate data necessarily drowns out variations, something Lamberth should have known and likely did.

Lamberth's observers may have found that indeed, whites and blacks 'speed' at the same rate if you lump all speeders into one category. Cops don't search like that or ticket like that. Speeders are categorized. So hypothetically if the races were split equally and 20% of all people were speeders, but whites were 'speeding' at 5 miles per hour over the limit and blacks were speeding at a minimum of 20 miles per hour over the limit, guess who is more likely to be stopped? And, oh, the racist disparity that ensues... The PSRI study at least partially does the right thing. It picks a specific violation, finds out independently who is violating and at what rate, and then sees if there's a difference between those numbers and the people the cops are stopping on their own judgement in the field. The only thing they could have done better is correlated their results for speeders alone, not all violators.

The proper thing to do would be to get all the reasons for stops in a randomized time period, independently see which groups were violating and what rates, and then see if that correlated or varied based on race from the rates at which copes stopped and/or ticketed for that violation. The study that came closest to following that design, the PSRI study, show's that indeed blacks were violating at a higher rate and were being stopped/ticketed at almost the exact same rate they were violating at.

Here is

Profiles in Distortion:

Misusing Data to Justify Racism and Privilege in Policing

An Analysis of Traffic Stops, Race and Media Deception in Nashville, Tennessee
Invalid Link Removed

In which the good Tim Wise shows that cherry picking data is okay when you're trying to prove racism but bad when you're trying to disprove it. If the ticketing data were slanted the other way Mr Wise and like minded folk would be on the floor in paroxisms of outrage at this blatant evidence showing racism. Of course the lesson you and perhaps he needs to learn is you look at all studies with a critical eye, not just the ones that seem to show the opposite of what you desire.

 

[CDB]

Now you all jumped on him over his racism there. But my question is, did he say that it was them being black that made them do that? You are drawing a causal relationship yourselves, that isn't necessarily what he was stating. If his company for instance made a large effort to recruit from poor inner city areas, isn't it also possible that a majority of these people are also more likely to be from teen mothers, absentee father homes, lower income levels, poorer education, relying on public transportation etc and that those are more of the causal part and the black part is a correlation only?

I'm not trying to state whether it is or isn't, just asking as a theoretical question.

Of course not.

What you have to understand, and going to that Bonilla link Luther posted helps, is that the study of race relations in the US is not and never has been an exercise in honesty. It has always been an exercise in blame assignment. That's why whites who claim to not care about skin color, and who even demonstrate a noncaring about skin color in their actions, are still racists, at least according to all the latest theorizing about the subject. You see, once the discussion allows for the removal or even partial removal of the scapegoat, then the question is no longer "What have they done to us?" but "What the hell are we doing to ourselves?" Blame can never be internalized because then the constant seeking of political solutions becomes nonsensical. And, historically, any group of people who tried to solve their problems with politics rather than internal advancement usually ended up getting the **** end of the stick. Look at the Irish in the UK for so long, look at blacks in the US vs any other minority group in the US that has dealt with adversity, racism, etc.

Race relations in the US between blacks and whites will never be honest because too many people thrive on the problems continuing and the nature of the political ideologies involved. You could point out that blacks get **** educations compared to whites, but then that ruffles the feathers of those who love socilized education. In their eyes it can't be the system, so it has to be racists within the system, hell bent on messing it up. Blacks aren't getting poor grades because they're jammed into classrooms more reminicent of prisons and taught history that is at best tangential to anything they're likely to be interested in. No, it's because someone at some level in the system has it out for them. Because nothing else, at least nothing that people in positions of authority want to hear, can explain continued failure in light of massive government hand outs and other forms of 'help'.

Note too how the income question conveniently got dropped. That happens in conversations with radical feminazis too when you point out average income figures aren't corrected for distribution of the populations within the labor force and so don't prove anyone is getting a lower salary than anyone else. Also happens when you point out that any significant wage differential biased downwards for the same level of productivity is a profit motive that would encourage the uptake of that labor to replace higher paid males or whites. Basically they're saying there's a sale on where you can product X (labor) at 40% off and no one is buying. It's nonsense. You get similar responses too. Dimwit presents poorly designed study used to 'prove' something it can't possibly prove due to its design, this gets pointed out to dimwit, dimwit then responds with generalities about the tendencies of 'white folks' or 'white males', etc. Failure to prove the case is always followed with rhetoric and obfuscation on some level. The important point though is that blame be maintained and put squarely on whitey's shoulders. It's group think at its finest. Because if it's not whitey's fault, then it's 'their' fault. The population is so locked into group identity by race that it never occurs to them that a scumbag in the ghetto is the one and only person who bears responsibility for his actions. No, it's always some social phenomena with blame distributed everywhere but on the individual actor.

 

[CDB]

Hey Luther, let me ask you something. All those scumbag cocksuckers dancing and parading in the streets, happy as kittens with a new ball of string all over those four cops that some African American gunned down, how should we whites feel about that? I mean I'm assuming whenever there's a KKK rally and a cross burned blacks are rightfully disgusted, scared, and feel a general anger directed towards all whites, however unjustified. I guess though this is all just fun and games and you have some bizarre half assed ivory tower social theory to explain why this all perfectly acceptable behavior and how whites should not, and better not, judge not only blacks in general but these 'protestors' in particular based on their very own actions, a the while excusing any and all similar, parallel judgements made by blacks, right?

I mean, when a crowd of blacks parades through the street, and as I understand it with a complete and total lack of class does it right in view of the families of the officers in question, and calls their murderer a folk hero... Well, what the ****? You're going to tell me that one, that's my fault, and two, those *******s don't have some serious **** problems of their own making to deal with?

 

[Jayhawkk]

Didn't know about the rally against the cops, CDB... They're right up there with that church that protests in front of soldier funerals.

 

[EasyEJL]

Yu mean half-black & half-white.

you mean "mixed". Reminds me of gina, a black girl I dated around 93-94ish. She was moderately racist, in that she expected white people as a group to be biased first and tended to be defensive, but was willing to give individuals a chance after a while. Anyhow, one day we were going to vist her moms house to bring something to her son, and she said "I want to let you know before we go over there that he's mixed." So of course my response was "What, half man half dog? or half horse like a centaur?"

 

[chaser103]

Some of these obsurd and racist comments are downright childist. Please keep these types of comments to yourself or leave it at home. Guys, just put an end to this post.

 

[Jayhawkk]

lol

 

[Bionic]

you mean "mixed". Reminds me of gina, a black girl I dated around 93-94ish. She was moderately racist, in that she expected white people as a group to be biased first and tended to be defensive, but was willing to give individuals a chance after a while.

That's not "racist." That's "prejudice."

 

[Bionic]

Hey Luther, let me ask you something. All those scumbag cocksuckers dancing and parading in the streets, happy as kittens with a new ball of string all over those four cops that some African American gunned down, how should we whites feel about that? I mean I'm assuming whenever there's a KKK rally and a cross burned blacks are rightfully disgusted, scared, and feel a general anger directed towards all whites, however unjustified.

People who would lump all whites in the same category as cross-burning, sheet-wearing cowards are just as asinine as anyone who would lump all blacks in with those freaks who are parading about the fallen officers.

 

[CDB]

People who would lump all whites in the same category as cross-burning, sheet-wearing cowards are just as asinine as anyone who would lump all blacks in with those freaks who are parading about the fallen officers.

So an intelligent person would say. My guess is Luther and Fuzeball or whatever the hell his name is have a different standard.

 

[CDB]

Didn't know about the rally against the cops, CDB... They're right up there with that church that protests in front of soldier funerals.

No, they're not. That's the problem. I don't know a single person, white or black, gay or straight, Christian or atheist, who supports what that church group does. Today at work I've already heard several coversations about this particular topic where a black person was handing someone the, "But you have to understand..." line. As if there's any excuse for taking a four time murdering, violent offending, released early so he could be a pedo rapist piece of **** and trying to rationalize anything he's done. It's a pattern I see all the time, goes back to my previous post about blame. No matter how disgustingly brutal or heinous an act someone one commits, if they're black then the 'black community' always swings into rationalization/justification mode, and you hear the stupidest most moronic bullshit coming out of the mouths of otherwise intelligent adults.

I have no idea how much of a role the media plays in this, making such idiots seem prominent, but my experience shows it isn't a small portion of the population that falls into this rationalization mode. If the whites were to try and 'find the good' in a white guy who committed similar acts with black victims they'd be strung up and mocked until the end of their days.

 

[lutherblsstt]

No, it is inflated. Significantly inflated would mean you had access to information showing a further breakdown of crimes by race, which you don't, and could make that judgement of significance. And this would not be a problem if the PC crowd weren't trying to slant the data anyway. If you're going to study race you don't use methods that obfuscate race, unless of course you want to keep one side of the debate murky while making difinitive conclusions about the side you want kept clear.



Most crime is intra racial, which is why if you want to examine this subject in particular you examine inter racial crime to see how groups behave toward each other. Nothing in the above negates any of the previous quotes from TCoC. There is also the NVCS study:



So the unavoidable question remains, if crimes are committed on a mostly opportunistic basis and races tend to self segregate, why do blacks tend to commit way more violent crimes against whites/hispanics than would be expected by mere exposure and opportunism?



Which conflicts with the PSRI study which, using radar and vehicle snap shots to identify speed and race respectively, shows that blacks were twice as likely to speed than whites. The Lamberth study, while widely used, suffers from one particularly massive problem: it defines violators of the traffic code so widely the whole damn driving public is included. He then uses the traffic code to back this up because it is damn near impossible to drive even a short way not offend some how. This however does not take into account how cops observe and decide who to stop in a turnpike setting. Or, in other words, Lamberth put the cart before the horse by assuming racism and treating all traffic violations as one big homogenous blob of **** to manufacture an equivalent violtion rate among blacks and whites when that's simply not the case. Any attempt to aggregate data necessarily drowns out variations, something Lamberth should have known and likely did.

Lamberth's observers may have found that indeed, whites and blacks 'speed' at the same rate if you lump all speeders into one category. Cops don't search like that or ticket like that. Speeders are categorized. So hypothetically if the races were split equally and 20% of all people were speeders, but whites were 'speeding' at 5 miles per hour over the limit and blacks were speeding at a minimum of 20 miles per hour over the limit, guess who is more likely to be stopped? And, oh, the racist disparity that ensues... The PSRI study at least partially does the right thing. It picks a specific violation, finds out independently who is violating and at what rate, and then sees if there's a difference between those numbers and the people the cops are stopping on their own judgement in the field. The only thing they could have done better is correlated their results for speeders alone, not all violators.

The proper thing to do would be to get all the reasons for stops in a randomized time period, independently see which groups were violating and what rates, and then see if that correlated or varied based on race from the rates at which copes stopped and/or ticketed for that violation. The study that came closest to following that design, the PSRI study, show's that indeed blacks were violating at a higher rate and were being stopped/ticketed at almost the exact same rate they were violating at.



In which the good Tim Wise shows that cherry picking data is okay when you're trying to prove racism but bad when you're trying to disprove it. If the ticketing data were slanted the other way Mr Wise and like minded folk would be on the floor in paroxisms of outrage at this blatant evidence showing racism. Of course the lesson you and perhaps he needs to learn is you look at all studies with a critical eye, not just the ones that seem to show the opposite of what you desire.

To eschew all estimates because some are used inappropriately or do not withstand scrutiny would be as foolhardy as ignoring all medical advice because some doctors are quacks.

Back to the topic.

Scores of studies document that when it comes to victims of crime the media pay disproportionately more attention to whites and women.

See: Franklin Gilliam,Shanto Iyengar et al., "Crime in Black and White," Working Paper,Center for American Politics and Public Policy.

Here is an enlightening piece:

Media Blackface
"Racial Profiling" in News Reporting
By Mikal Muharrar

Racial profiling--the discriminatory practice by police of treating blackness (or brownness) as an indication of possible criminality--has lately been the focus of frequent legal or legislative action, resulting in a significant amount of coverage in the mainstream news media (e.g. New York Times, 5/8/98, 5/10/98; Nightline, 5/31/98; Time, 6/15/98).

The coverage of police racial profiling has been fairly accurate and balanced. Yet while the mainstream media continues to cover police racial profiling, they have generally failed to acknowledge their own practice of media racial profiling. And when it has, the result has been more cover-up than coverage.

Issues in Blackface

There is need for a broader understanding of "racial profiling." As a general concept and not just a specific police policy, racial profiling may best be understood as the politically acceptable and very American practice of defining a social problem in "blackface"--i.e., in racial terms--through indirect association. Once portrayed in blackface, the "blackness" of the problem encourages suspicion, polarizing antagonism, and typically leads to the targeting of the racial group for punitive (public policy) action.

The link between the stereotypical profile and the public policy is key. In police racial profiling it is direct: Individual officers act on racial stereotypes against racial minorities, especially African-Americans. But when it comes to the news media, the racial profiles projected are indirectly related to punitive public policies, thus giving the mainstream news media the "out" of deniability. When the news media over-represents the number of black people in the category that is at issue, the issue becomes "black," stigmatized, linked to some form of always-justified politically punishing behavior, and, in turn, further racialized.

Examples of issues defined in blackface and subjected to a racial profile include the black drug abuser and drug dealer, the threatening and invasive black criminal, the black welfare cheat and queen, and the undeserving black affirmative action recipient. The punitive actions associated with drugs, crime, welfare and affirmative action policy are self-evident, and involve punitive action disproportionately affecting African-American people.

The brilliance of racial profiling as an instrument of modern, deniable racism is that the issue--be it crime, welfare, drug abuse or what have you--is seen by many as a real issue that is only coincidentally about race. The trait of blackness associated with the problem is viewed as nothing more than an unfortunate reality that is secondary to the public hostility and the punitive measures. So it's not really racist, is it?

By looking at the ways in which the mainstream news media has covered (or failed to cover) several recent studies/stories involving the news media and race, we can begin to get a better understanding of this practice of racial profiling as it relates to the news media.

Racial Profiling as the Missing Link

In March 1998, two studies on U.S. drug policy were released by two prominent groups of physicians within a day of each other. The first study was issued by Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), a high-profile group of doctors composed, in part, of high-ranking health officials from the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations. The voluminous and exhaustively documented PLNDP study concluded that drug treatment for drug addiction was not only an effective health measure but that it was much more cost-effective then the criminalizing policies of the current "drug war".

One section of the study showed how, contrary to popular perception, drug addicts are not primarily members of minority racial and ethnic groups. "The research we are releasing today," the PLNDP announced at its press conference, "shows, conclusively, that drug addiction is very treatable and that it reaches across all strata of society, with affluent, educated Caucasians being the most likely drug users, and the most likely to be addicted." Looking at adult drug users, the PLNDP study found that more than half of those who admitted using heroin last year are white and 60 percent of monthly cocaine users are white. (Also, 77 percent of regular marijuana users are white, while one in six is African-American.) Youth drug use followed similar patterns.

Paralleling this point about the public misperception of drug use were the results of a survey of 50 years of public opinion called the "The Public and the War on Illicit Drugs," which was featured in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (3/11/98). The study found that although Americans did not think the so-called "War on Drugs" was succeeding, they did not want to abandon the criminalization approach pushed by the government. The study also found that there was weak support for increasing funding for drug treatment.

One of its key conclusions was that public opinion polls indicated the overwhelming majority of Americans had "relatively little firsthand experience with the extent of the problems associated with drug use," and that "the majority of Americans report getting most of their information about the seriousness of the illicit drug problems from the news media, mainly television." In fact, the PLNDP presented the JAMA study at its press conference to emphasize how public opinion and the judgment of seasoned physicians were at odds with each other, and how the news media was playing a leading role in misinforming the public about the health and financial issues at the heart of "Drug War" policy.

The powerful findings of these two reports were not covered by any of the three major newsweeklies (Time, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek), nor were they covered by the New York Times or Washington Post. When the story was covered, moreover, the dominant media focused on the disconnect between the views of the public and the research of the physicians*but said nothing about the role of the news media in fostering the stereotypes fueling the bad drug policy (CNN Today, 3/17/98; Associated Press, 3/17/98; USA Today, 3/18/98).

The role of the news media in promoting racial stereotypes was the missing link between the two studies. Even when Nightline (3/18/98) began its coverage of the story with the acknowledgment that, when it came to the issue of drug addiction and drug policy in the U.S., "most Americans get their information from the new media," the show glossed over the central problem of news media misinformation. Nor did Nightline host Ted Koppel refrain from reinforcing the very misconceptions his show could have been debunking: Koppel's repeated emphasis on how "society does not want to spend money on rehabilitation"--when a main point of the PLNDP report was that treatment saves money--amounted to a brief for the very media-enforced ignorance the doctors' groups sought to dispel.

Almost alone in its coverage of this story was an article by Raja Mishra written for the Knight Ridder News Service and appearing in the Denver Post (3/19/98). Mishra went to the heart of the story when reporting how "the doctors said the public had been misled by media accounts." The role of the news media in promoting racial stereotypes was the missing link between the two studies. Given the nature of the studies, an obvious conclusion. But it was all but obvious to the mainstream press.

No Surprise

Another study, "Crime in Black and White: The Violent, Scary World of Local News" appeared in the academic journal Press/Politics at the end of 1996 (Spring/96). Although appearing in a scholarly journal on journalism, this study received almost no attention in the media, except for its coverage in the Washington Post (4/28/97) by its media correspondent, Howard Kurtz.

Done by UCLA professors Franklin Gilliam and Shanto Iyengar, "Crime in Black and White" found through a content analysis of local television station KABC in Los Angeles that coverage of crime featured two important cues: "crime is violent and criminals are nonwhite." The real revelation, however, was that television viewers were so accustomed to seeing African-American crime suspects on the local news that even when the race of a suspect was not specified, viewers tended to remember seeing a black suspect. Moreover, when researchers used digital technology to change the race of certain suspects as they appeared on the screen, a little over a half of those who saw the "white" perpetrator recalled his race, but two-thirds did when the criminal was depicted as black. "Ninety percent of the false recognitions involved African-Americans and Hispanics," Gilliam said.

To his credit, Kurtz acknowledged the public policy implications of the study when he stated that "support for punitive law-enforcement policies was highest when the stories featured black suspects or provided no information about race and was lowest when the suspects were white." But his response to the "riveting" findings was fatalistic: "This is not the first complaint about coverage of minorities and crime, and most local stations have not seen fit to change their approach," he wrote. And when he said that the study placed a "surprisingly harsh light on television and racial attitudes," one might ask: To whom should this be surprising?

When, a few months later, Kurtz addressed another study of racism in the news media, he again expressed surprise. The study by Yale University professor Martin Gilens, entitled "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media," was published in Public Opinion Quarterly (vol. 6, 1996) and found that while African-Americans make up 29 percent of the nation's poor, they constitute 62 percent of the images of the poor in the leading news magazines, and 65 percent of the images of the poor on the leading network television news programs. Not only were the poor disproportionately portrayed as black, but they were also portrayed in the most unsympathetic fashion. The most sympathetic groups of the poor--i.e. the elderly and the working poor--were under-represented and the least sympathetic group--unemployed working-age adults--was over-represented.

Kurtz, who did not discuss these findings in the Washington Post, was part of a discussion of the study on the CNN "media watch" program Reliable Sources (8/24/97). "Who Put the Black Face on Poverty," the show asked. Well, the mainstream media "whiteout" of the story provides a clue. Gilens' study specifically looked at the coverage of Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report and ABC, NBC and CBS news. Unsurprisingly, none of these big media outlets covered the release of the study results. Neither did the New York Times. USA Today (8/9/97) and the Washington Post (5/15/97) covered it in a mere paragraph or two.

It was left to the Associated Press (8/18/97) and CNN's Reliable Sources (8/24/97) to really cover the story. AP's coverage stood out because it addressed Gilen's point about the news media perpetuating racist misperceptions of the poor that are associated with greater opposition to welfare policy among whites.

But in "Who Put the Black Face on Poverty," CNN's Reliable Sources succeeded in avoiding this point altogether--and in denying that racism was the reason the "black face" was on poverty in the first place. The problem, according to Kurtz, was one of "video wallpaper"--"the pictures that automatically get thrown up" when big city media outlets use photos from, well, big cities with inner cities populated by high concentrations of poor black people.

The fact that Gilens explicitly addressed and refuted this claim in his study never came up. Also unmentioned was Gilen's point about how "apparently well-meaning, racially liberal news professionals generate images of the social world that consistently misrepresent both black Americans and poor people in destructive ways." Surprised?

 

[lutherblsstt]

Hey Luther, let me ask you something. All those scumbag cocksuckers dancing and parading in the streets, happy as kittens with a new ball of string all over those four cops that some African American gunned down, how should we whites feel about that?

Using EasyEJL's line 'Are you sure they are celebrating because the cops were white or is it just because they were cops?'

Rapper Talib Kweli has a line that goes ""What do I say to a dead cop's wife?/ Cops kill my people every day/ that's life"

 

[EasyEJL]

Using EasyEJL's line 'Are you sure they are celebrating because the cops were white or is it just because they were cops?'

Rapper Talib Kweli has a line that goes ""What do I say to a dead cop's wife?/ Cops kill my people every day/ that's life"

Whether its because they were white or cops, that still leaves the revelers as scum Just a question of general scum, or racist scum.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Whether its because they were white or cops, that still leaves the revelers as scum Just a question of general scum, or racist scum.

I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well.

 

[RobInKuwait]

I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well.

Its overly simplistic for you to look back and condemn cops in hindsight.

One should remember that a cop apprehending a dangerous felon in a dark alley has split second and limited information to make the life and death decision that could keep him and other innocent civilians alive. Yes, it sucks when an innocent is shot, but to jump to conclusions about the cop's intentions and motivations after the fact is unfair. The legal process recognizes that the cop's perceptions about the situation at the time, given the limited information he had to go off of is the most important factor, not 20/20 hindsight.

Yes, some cop's have shot citizens without cause, but the vast majority of police involved shootings are "good shoots" in the eyes of the law.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well.

Rob pretty much said what I was going to say. You have to take in everything of that situation. The people out there marching for the criminal who killed the police officers did not care about his violent history or the legitimate traffic stop. They saw a black guy being shot by police and that's all they cared to know. That's a big jump to assume all innocent poeple shot/killed by police were done so with bad intentions. Obviously some were and in those cases it was done by 'scum' cops regardless of race.

 

[EasyEJL]

I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well.

Only if they take joy in it and celebrate it.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Rob pretty much said what I was going to say. You have to take in everything of that situation. The people out there marching for the criminal who killed the police officers did not care about his violent history or the legitimate traffic stop. They saw a black guy being shot by police and that's all they cared to know. That's a big jump to assume all innocent poeple shot/killed by police were done so with bad intentions. Obviously some were and in those cases it was done by 'scum' cops regardless of race.

Exactly. If some guy in a dark alley pulls out a realistic looking toy gun, can you really say that cop did something wrong if he shot him. He found out it wasn't a real gun after the fact, so you can't hold it against him.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Only if they take joy in it and celebrate it.

How about in the case of Abner Louima?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[dezzy84]

DALLAS – An NFL player said Monday he accepts the apology offered by a Dallas police officer who stopped him with a drawn gun in a hospital parking lot while his mother-in-law was dying inside.

Houston Texans running back Ryan Moats said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that he hopes Officer Robert Powell was sincere in his apology.

Powell stopped Moats' SUV outside Baylor Regional Medical Center in suburban Plano on March 18 after the vehicle rolled through a red light. Moats' wife, Tamishia, and other relatives were also in the car.

The officer pulled out his gun and threatened Moats with jail as the player pleaded to be allowed to go inside the hospital. Moats' mother-in-law died before he got there while Powell write Moats a ticket and lectured him.

Powell, who has been placed on paid leave pending an investigation, issued a statement Friday through his attorneys.

"I wish to publicly and sincerely apologize to the Moats family, my colleagues in the Dallas Police Department, and to all those who have been rightfully angered by my actions on March 18, 2009. After stopping Mr. Moats' vehicle, I showed poor judgment and insensitivity to Mr. Moats and his family by my words and actions," Powell's statement said.

Tamishia Moats said she'd like to hear the apology personally, but that she, too, would definitely accept it.

According to video from a dashboard camera inside the officer's vehicle, Tamishia Moats and another woman disregarded Powell's order to get back inside their vehicle, and they rushed into the hospital. She was by the side of her mother, 45-year-old Jonetta Collinsworth, when she died a short time later from breast cancer.

Powell yelled at Tamishia Moats to stay in the SUV.

"Excuse me, my mom is dying," Tamishia Moats said. "Do you understand?"

Ryan Moats later said the officer pointed his gun at his wife and then at him.

He explained that he waited until there was no traffic before continuing through the red light. When Powell asked for proof of insurance, Moats grew more agitated and told the officer to go find it.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

And your point Mr. Black Power?

 

[Jayhawkk]

There are officers out there who **** up? No ****...

 

[EasyEJL]

How about in the case of Abner Louima?

Invalid Link Removed

Sure, that individual officer, Officer Justin Volpe is scum. Again as with most of your arguments means nothing, show me where the police department celebrated in the streets over this? Made signs saying "Haitians got what they deserved" and waved them in the air?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"Haitians got what they deserved" and waved them in the air?

:lol:

 

[EasyEJL]

I wouldn't have apologized if I was the cop. Moats went through a red light, and then he refused to stop when the officer had his lights and siren on, and also didn't stop at a stop sign while the officer was behind him with lights on. He continued till he got to the hospital.

The laws about stop lights and stop signs don't have a disclaimer of "if something important is happening, you have a right to ignore them". And the officer was understandably irritated at the failure to stop then. How many times a day does an officer hear excuses for why someone broke a traffic law? Roughly once per pull-over.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I understand they get excuses but the cop didn't even try to verify the story. They did drive to a hospital. Common sense has to prevail and even when the hospital security guard and nurse told the cop the story was true, he still kept them for another 10 minutes. In that 10 minutes, she died.

It doens't take much to verify the story....they're AT the hospital...

That cop was a complete dickhead.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I would of apologized... Taking into account of their excuse and the relative closeness of the hospital. I would of just given them an escort and verified the situation. You could always cite them later and add offenses if they were lying.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I understand they get excuses but the cop didn't even try to verify the story. They did drive to a hospital. Common sense has to prevail and even when the hospital security guard and nurse told the cop the story was true, he still kept them for another 10 minutes. In that 10 minutes, she died.

It doens't take much to verify the story....they're AT the hospital...

That cop was a complete dickhead.

I agree

 

[EasyEJL]

I would of apologized... Taking into account of their excuse and the relative closeness of the hospital. I would of just given them an escort and verified the situation. You could always cite them later and add offenses if they were lying.

If they had stopped when he first put on the lights and siren, I would have agreed. But they just ignored him.

 

[Jayhawkk]

You still have to take into account of the extenuating circumstances.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

But they just ignored him.

So would I.....

 

[EasyEJL]

You still have to take into account of the extenuating circumstances.

isn't "refusing to pull over" an extenuating circumstance too? Is it "law enforcement" or "law enforcement when it won't hurt someones feelings"?

There was a similar case here in tampa that got people in an uproar, a mother who was out of work got pulled over after making an illegal u-turn at a corner that has a no uturn sign. She made the u-turn because her child in the back threw up, and she made the uturn to clean the child up. The officer pulled her over and ticketed here and she was late for something or another (job interview if i recall, although thinking about it i'm not sure how she would have done a job interview with the child there). Anyhow, there was all sorts of outrage over the officer's "lack of sensitivity" in ticketing her. I'm still at a total loss as to why, particularly because the mom could have made the legal turn at that corner, and pulled into the parking lot on the right hand side of that street instead (a moderate sized strip mall).

I fail to see the point of laws that are simple straightforward ones (like no turn, stop, speed limits, etc) when it is a problem to some people that officers enforce them.

 

[EasyEJL]

So would I.....

if it was my mother in law dying? I wouldn't mind pulling over

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I fail to see the point of laws that are simple straightforward ones (like no turn, stop, speed limits, etc) when it is a problem to some people that officers enforce them.

The US, nor any western country has ever followed the concept of "full enforcement" of the law...especially when it comes to traffic laws. This is by design. If it wasn't, everyone on I-75 would get a ticket.

 

[Jayhawkk]

Exactly... I would of probably pulled over and tried to quickly explain my situation and had the officer not accepted this and let me on my way I would of taken off. It's really hard to say without being in the family's shoes. However, as an officer i would of treated the stop as an attempt to flee and a hostile one until i was able to determine the situation. Things would have changed quickly once I started to get additional information from security and nurses. The initial response wasn't the issue. It was continuing the course of action even with additional information.

The cop was most likely being a ****.

 

[EasyEJL]

The initial response wasn't the issue. It was continuing the course of action even with additional information.

Yeah, I guess he was excessive there, 15 minutes is a long time.

I wonder if this was racially reversed and it was a black cop and a white football player whether people would be saying its just another case of the white many trying to hold a brother who was just trying to do his job down, another way to get a black man off the police force.

 

[CDB]

To eschew all estimates because some are used inappropriately or do not withstand scrutiny would be as foolhardy as ignoring all medical advice because some doctors are quacks.

Ignoring the quacks specifically is however a good idea.

Scores of studies document that when it comes to victims of crime the media pay disproportionately more attention to whites and women.

Not something I've ever seen justified study-wise, but also not something I would dispute out of my own experience. So what? It's a completely different point than anything we've been arguing over.

Examples of issues defined in blackface and subjected to a racial profile include the black drug abuser and drug dealer, the threatening and invasive black criminal, the black welfare cheat and queen, and the undeserving black affirmative action recipient.

And there may be some merit to that, however two facts do bear mentioning. One, there is no such thing as an undeserving white affirmative action recipient. Two, how many of these shows are biased toward urban environments? A lot I'd wager. And in an urban environment you're much more likely to see a black crack addict, a black invasive criminal, a black welfare cheat, etc. That's a matter of populations and reality. If you want to show me some TV show that concentrates on whitebreadville and everyone in the trailer park is black, you've got a point. That's not the way it works from my experience though.

By looking at the ways in which the mainstream news media has covered (or failed to cover) several recent studies/stories involving the news media and race, we can begin to get a better understanding of this practice of racial profiling as it relates to the news media.

And how about the opposite? There are crimes that have been committed that are so damn horrible that have been sanitized and not reported nationally because the victims were white and the offenders black. Whereas, were those relations reversed you likely never would have heard the end of such crimes. The Wichita Horror being one. Invalid Link Removed? Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom?

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.
“3 blacks sentenced in ‘90 racial attack.” Chicago Tribune, May 20.

Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.

Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.
“AWOL Marine in Indiana admits seven racial killings, sources say.” Miami Herald, Feb. 2.

Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.
“The killing class.” Miami Herald, Feb. 24; Gehrke, Donna. (1992). “ ‘I felt power’ while slaying 6 people, former Yaweh ‘death angel’ testifies.” Miami Herald, Jan. 30.

North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.
“Three strikes?” Destiny, Feb.

North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”
“Tiffany Long: Too white to be a victim.” FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 29. Invalid Link Removed.

Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had sex with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours.

At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.

“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.

“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.

“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.

“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.

“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”
“Rape suspects were seeking white woman.” Denver Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 30.

Kansas City, Missouri. An Ethiopian immigrant shot two white coworkers — killing one and critically injuring the other — at his workplace, then turned the gun on himself. At his residence, police found a three-page, signed note he had written in which he railed at “black blood sucker supreme white people” for oppressing him and black people in general.10

New York City. In a Midtown office building, a white woman was assaulted, raped, and anally raped by a black man who called her racist names during the attack. Police refused to label it a hate crime.11

Alexandria, Virginia. A black man walking through a neighborhood went over to a white eight-year-old boy playing in his great-grandparents’ front yard and slit the child’s throat, killing him. A witness says that the attacker shouted racial epithets during the attack, and the main suspect in the case owns anti-white hate literature and had written a note about killing white children. He had been previously arrested for attacking an unarmed white stranger with a hammer. (During the attack, he called his victim “Whitey.”)12

This particular case provides a perfect example of the terrible way that anti-white hate crimes are handled. First, the investigators decided not to tell police officers about the racial aspects of the case, even while the police were conducting a manhunt to find the boy’s killer. When this was revealed by the Washington Post, city council member Joyce Woodson defended this withholding of information from the cops on the front line. “What they did was proper. We already live in a racially charged world.” The Democratic mayor of Alexandria implied his agreement: “Efforts to sensationalize this investigation will only hurt this investigation.”13

To make things even stranger, the FBI offered to send agents and a fugitive task force to help with the manhunt, but the local police rejected the offer. They also refused the help of the FBI’s profilers, forensics experts, and others.14

Eventually, the police arrested a suspect who was reportedly tied to the scene by DNA evidence. In another bizarre move, the Justice Department — which had acknowledged that it was monitoring the case — declined to prosecute the killing as a hate crime. The government’s prosecutor in the case cannot charge the victim with a hate crime. “There’s no applicable hate crimes law in Virginia,” he explained.15

An editorial in the Washington Times pointedly commented on the deafening silence surrounding the brutal child-murder: “Has anyone seen Jesse Jackson around lately? Kweisi Mfume? Al Sharpton? For persons whose political antennae are ordinarily so sensitive that they can pick up racial tremors a thousand miles away, they seem to have overlooked a possible hate crime right here in the vicinity of the nation’s capital.”

10 - Associated Press. (1999). “Kansas City airport shooting victims identified.” Jefferson City News Tribune, Nov. 22.

11 - Weiss, Murray, et al. (1999). “Cops fume over lousy video of 6th Ave. rapist.” New York Post, Dec. 22.

12 - Davis, Patricia. (2000). “Manhunt in Alexandria for killer of 8-year-old.” Washington Post, April 20; Drake, John & Ellen Sorokin (2000a). “Stabbing probers kept race a secret.” Washington Post, July 12; unsigned. (2000). “The hate crime that wasn’t.” Washington Times, July 12.

13 - Op cit., Drake & Sorokin (2000a); Sorokin, Ellen & John Drake. (2000b). “Boy’s stabbing draws attention about race.” Washington Times, July 13.

14 - Op cit., Drake & Sorokin (2000a).

15 - Rubush, Scott. (2000). “Black hate on trial.” FrontPage Magazine, Oct. 26.

Looks like the media can biased in a whole lot of ways based on race.

One section of the study showed how, contrary to popular perception, drug addicts are not primarily members of minority racial and ethnic groups. "The research we are releasing today," the PLNDP announced at its press conference, "shows, conclusively, that drug addiction is very treatable and that it reaches across all strata of society, with affluent, educated Caucasians being the most likely drug users, and the most likely to be addicted." Looking at adult drug users, the PLNDP study found that more than half of those who admitted using heroin last year are white and 60 percent of monthly cocaine users are white. (Also, 77 percent of regular marijuana users are white, while one in six is African-American.) Youth drug use followed similar patterns.

To my memory these numbers were, once more, raw percentages not corrected for proportion of the population. If blacks are ~30% of active cocaine users and only 10% of the population, that means they are using at a higher rate. Same for all other drug use and the relevantly higher or lower portion of the population that uses respectively.

how the news media was playing a leading role in misinforming the public about the health and financial issues at the heart of "Drug War" policy.

The news media has been doing this for decades. What's your point though, that a racist policy like the drug war is... racist? Is redundancy your middle name?

The powerful findings of these two reports were not covered by any of the three major newswee

"society does not want to spend money on rehabilitation"

Point of fact: rehabilitation doesn't save money, it just leads to relatively less spending on the part of the government on drug policy. That money is then spent somewhere else by the government, it is never given back to the people. Hence, nothing is saved. And, on moral and ethical grounds people have every right to demand their money not serve to subsidize the bad behavior of others, whether it's objecting to handouts to huge banks or handouts to morons who decided to mainline heroin.

Although appearing in a scholarly journal on journalism, this study received almost no attention in the media, except for its coverage in the Washington Post (4/28/97) by its media correspondent, Howard Kurtz.

Done by UCLA professors Franklin Gilliam and Shanto Iyengar, "Crime in Black and White" found through a content analysis of local television station KABC in Los Angeles that coverage of crime featured two important cues: "crime is violent and criminals are nonwhite."

Hardly news, since it's true.

But in "Who Put the Black Face on Poverty," CNN's Reliable Sources succeeded in avoiding this point altogether--and in denying that racism was the reason the "black face" was on poverty in the first place. The problem, according to Kurtz, was one of "video wallpaper"--"the pictures that automatically get thrown up" when big city media outlets use photos from, well, big cities with inner cities populated by high concentrations of poor black people.

The fact that Gilens explicitly addressed and refuted this claim in his study never came up. Also unmentioned was Gilen's point about how "apparently well-meaning, racially liberal news professionals generate images of the social world that consistently misrepresent both black Americans and poor people in destructive ways."

I can't confirm or deny this debunking, I'd be interested to see just how he eliminated this as an issue. It's also an issue in newspapers as they use clippings from 'the morgue'. In any event you are once more copying and pasting rather than giving your own thoughts. Do you have any of your own, or are you totally reliant upon others to think for you?

Using EasyEJL's line 'Are you sure they are celebrating because the cops were white or is it just because they were cops?'

Is either less sickening or less worth wiping such people off the face of the Earth for?

I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well.

If they do so with bad intentions, worse than scum. If they do so because they're in a tight position and have to make a decision based on limited facts that later turns out to be wrong, no.

And point of fact: cops are civilians. The police force is not military or para military in nature, much as they might want to be. You do nothing to stop the militarization of the police by playing into the jargon that favors it.

If some guy in a dark alley pulls out a realistic looking toy gun, can you really say that cop did something wrong if he shot him. He found out it wasn't a real gun after the fact, so you can't hold it against him.

That would in my view depend on who created the live or die situation.

There are officers out there who **** up? No ****...

No, I think his point would be you and others, probably including me, dismiss such incidents too quickly. I don't. I think they are too prevalent as well. I just don't think, seeing as how my whitest of white friends have dealt with similar **** from cops, it's primarily or systemically racist in nature.

I've met professional police officers who I like and felt safe to know they were on the streets. I've also met far more than my fair share of blue boy power tripping cocksuckers who apparently wanted the gun and badge so they could do their best to harass people. Do a Google or YouTube search for cop caught on camera and you'll see almost endless videos of cops breaking the law, abusing people, power tripping, threatening people with false charges, etc., etc., etc. I've got a camera installed in my car now for this very reason. Did so after that kid in St George Missouri caught that ******* cop going on a power trip, threatening him with arrest on false charges.

Point being though, the cop was a presumptuous *******, not a racist.

I wouldn't have apologized if I was the cop. Moats went through a red light, and then he refused to stop when the officer had his lights and siren on, and also didn't stop at a stop sign while the officer was behind him with lights on. He continued till he got to the hospital.

The laws about stop lights and stop signs don't have a disclaimer of "if something important is happening, you have a right to ignore them". And the officer was understandably irritated at the failure to stop then. How many times a day does an officer hear excuses for why someone broke a traffic law? Roughly once per pull-over.

True. But, I wonder, how would the cop have handled it had Moats stopped at the first violation and said, "Please officer..." I seriously doubt no matter what he said, no matter how reasonable or sincere it sounded, that the cop would have given a ****. He likely then would have gone back to his car, did whatever the hell it is they do back there for the three straight hours it seems to take to write up a ticket, and then let them go on their way.

At which point the mother in law would have been dead and their family robbed on a last chance to say goodbye to her because of a minor traffic violation and an officious prick of a cop. This bullshit attitude of the law being the law and that is the end all be all of anything is just that; bullshit.

I would of apologized... Taking into account of their excuse and the relative closeness of the hospital. I would of just given them an escort and verified the situation. You could always cite them later and add offenses if they were lying.

That would be reasonable. And even given this story itself, when it became clear they were heading to the damn hospital it doesn't take a brain surgeon to deduce there might be a reason they were going fast and not totally 100% stopping at every signal.

This cop likely would have given the driver a ticket if his wife had been in labor right next him.

 

[lutherblsstt]

Sure, that individual officer, Officer Justin Volpe is scum. Again as with most of your arguments means nothing, show me where the police department celebrated in the streets over this? Made signs saying "Haitians got what they deserved" and waved them in the air?

I stated that "I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well."

you said "Only if they take joy in it and celebrate it."

How do you know they did not take joy and celebrate killing Amadou Diallo or raping Abner Louima? Because it was not on TV?

 

[lutherblsstt]

Ignoring the quacks specifically is however a good idea.



Not something I've ever seen justified study-wise, but also not something I would dispute out of my own experience. So what? It's a completely different point than anything we've been arguing over.



And there may be some merit to that, however two facts do bear mentioning. One, there is no such thing as an undeserving white affirmative action recipient. Two, how many of these shows are biased toward urban environments? A lot I'd wager. And in an urban environment you're much more likely to see a black crack addict, a black invasive criminal, a black welfare cheat, etc. That's a matter of populations and reality. If you want to show me some TV show that concentrates on whitebreadville and everyone in the trailer park is black, you've got a point. That's not the way it works from my experience though.



And how about the opposite? There are crimes that have been committed that are so damn horrible that have been sanitized and not reported nationally because the victims were white and the offenders black. Whereas, were those relations reversed you likely never would have heard the end of such crimes. The Wichita Horror being one. Invalid Link Removed? Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom?

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.
“3 blacks sentenced in ‘90 racial attack.” Chicago Tribune, May 20.

Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.

Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.
“AWOL Marine in Indiana admits seven racial killings, sources say.” Miami Herald, Feb. 2.

Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.
“The killing class.” Miami Herald, Feb. 24; Gehrke, Donna. (1992). “ ‘I felt power’ while slaying 6 people, former Yaweh ‘death angel’ testifies.” Miami Herald, Jan. 30.

North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.
“Three strikes?” Destiny, Feb.

North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”
“Tiffany Long: Too white to be a victim.” FrontPage Magazine, Feb. 29. Invalid Link Removed.

Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had sex with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours.

At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.

“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.

“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.

“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.

“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.

“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”
“Rape suspects were seeking white woman.” Denver Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 30.



Looks like the media can biased in a whole lot of ways based on race.

Invalid Link Removed

Another study, "Crime in Black and White: The Violent, Scary World of Local News" appeared in the academic journal Press/Politics at the end of 1996 (Spring/96). Although appearing in a scholarly journal on journalism, this study received almost no attention in the media, except for its coverage in the Washington Post (4/28/97) by its media correspondent, Howard Kurtz.

Done by UCLA professors Franklin Gilliam and Shanto Iyengar, "Crime in Black and White" found through a content analysis of local television station KABC in Los Angeles that coverage of crime featured two important cues: "crime is violent and criminals are nonwhite."

The real revelation, however, was that television viewers were so accustomed to seeing African-American crime suspects on the local news that even when the race of a suspect was not specified, viewers tended to remember seeing a black suspect. Moreover, when researchers used digital technology to change the race of certain suspects as they appeared on the screen, a little over a half of those who saw the "white" perpetrator recalled his race, but two-thirds did when the criminal was depicted as black. "Ninety percent of the false recognitions involved African-Americans and Hispanics," Gilliam said.

To his credit, Kurtz acknowledged the public policy implications of the study when he stated that "support for punitive law-enforcement policies was highest when the stories featured black suspects or provided no information about race and was lowest when the suspects were white." But his response to the "riveting" findings was fatalistic: "This is not the first complaint about coverage of minorities and crime, and most local stations have not seen fit to change their approach," he wrote. And when he said that the study placed a "surprisingly harsh light on television and racial attitudes," one might ask: To whom should this be surprising?

When, a few months later, Kurtz addressed another study of racism in the news media, he again expressed surprise. The study by Yale University professor Martin Gilens, entitled "Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media," was published in Public Opinion Quarterly (vol. 6, 1996) and found that while African-Americans make up 29 percent of the nation's poor, they constitute 62 percent of the images of the poor in the leading news magazines, and 65 percent of the images of the poor on the leading network television news programs. Not only were the poor disproportionately portrayed as black, but they were also portrayed in the most unsympathetic fashion. The most sympathetic groups of the poor--i.e. the elderly and the working poor--were under-represented and the least sympathetic group--unemployed working-age adults--was over-represented.

Kurtz, who did not discuss these findings in the Washington Post, was part of a discussion of the study on the CNN "media watch" program Reliable Sources (8/24/97). "Who Put the Black Face on Poverty," the show asked. Well, the mainstream media "whiteout" of the story provides a clue. Gilens' study specifically looked at the coverage of Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report and ABC, NBC and CBS news. Unsurprisingly, none of these big media outlets covered the release of the study results. Neither did the New York Times. USA Today (8/9/97) and the Washington Post (5/15/97) covered it in a mere paragraph or two.

It was left to the Associated Press (8/18/97) and CNN's Reliable Sources (8/24/97) to really cover the story. AP's coverage stood out because it addressed Gilen's point about the news media perpetuating racist misperceptions of the poor that are associated with greater opposition to welfare policy among whites.

But in "Who Put the Black Face on Poverty," CNN's Reliable Sources succeeded in avoiding this point altogether--and in denying that racism was the reason the "black face" was on poverty in the first place. The problem, according to Kurtz, was one of "video wallpaper"--"the pictures that automatically get thrown up" when big city media outlets use photos from, well, big cities with inner cities populated by high concentrations of poor black people.

The fact that Gilens explicitly addressed and refuted this claim in his study never came up. Also unmentioned was Gilen's point about how "apparently well-meaning, racially liberal news professionals generate images of the social world that consistently misrepresent both black Americans and poor people in destructive ways." Surprised?

Spooking the Public

Given the prevalence of racial profiling documented here and elsewhere, it only makes sense that a recent survey of young people found that they not only recognized that racial stereotyping was rampant on television, but that TV news was a worse perpetrator of racial stereotyping than TV's entertainment programming.

The poll, sponsored by the child advocacy group Children Now, interviewed 1,200 boys and girls aged 10-17, with 300 children coming from each of the four largest racial groups. White and African-American children said they see people of their own race on television, while Latino and Asian children were much less likely to see their race represented.

Across all races, children are more likely to associate positive characteristics with white characters and negative characteristics with minority characters. "A Different World: Children's Perceptions of Race and Class in the Media" reported that "children of all races agree that the news media tend to portray African-American and Latino people more negatively than white and Asian people, particularly when the news is about young people." In addition, "large majorities of African-Americans (71 percent), Latino (63 percent) and Asian (51 percent) children feel there should be more people of their race as newscasters, while most white children feel there are enough white newscasters (76 percent)."

Again, there was a virtually complete news media white-out of this critical finding. All CNN Newsnight (5/7/98) could say was that the study found that children were "influenced by television news." The Associated Press (5/6/98) did no better.

On a Nightline (5/6/98) program about the study, guests complained of disproportionately negative images of people of color. The children said they wanted to see television reflect the "realities of their lives," to "feature more teenagers," to be "real," and most importantly, to show more people of all races interacting with each other. The Nightline guests echoed this sense. In response, Nightline host Ted Koppel asked if it was the function of the media to present things "as it is or as we think it should be?"

The children's perception that the news media were the worse perpetrator of racial stereotyping was indeed mentioned but was never really addressed in the show. Clearly, then, news media are not presenting things as they are--but rather as racial fears project them to be. And a racialized policy agenda is being served up and served. The news media's practice of racial profiling gives the news consumer no real choice: Too often, we don't get the reality of what really is, or the dream of what should be, but an imaginary nightmare in blackface.

 

[EasyEJL]

I stated that "I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well."

you said "Only if they take joy in it and celebrate it."

How do you know they did not take joy and celebrate killing Amadou Diallo or raping Abner Louima? Because it was not on TV?

You base so many of your arguments like claims of racism, and now claims of secret joy on knowing the unstated intent and hidden thoughts of others that you must be psychic. Can you tell me this weeks lotto numbers for Florida?

I believe in the basic goodness of mankind, and without them purposefully and directly showing me differently my first thought is that all people's motives and thoughts are good. After a pattern of a specific individual acting otherwise, I can come to believe they are otherwise.

 

[lutherblsstt]

You base so many of your arguments like claims of racism, and now claims of secret joy on knowing the unstated intent and hidden thoughts of others that you must be psychic. Can you tell me this weeks lotto numbers for Florida?

I believe in the basic goodness of mankind, and without them purposefully and directly showing me differently my first thought is that all people's motives and thoughts are good. After a pattern of a specific individual acting otherwise, I can come to believe they are otherwise.

No,I base my arguments on actions,research,experience,etc. It doesn 't take a mind reader to know that the officer who committed the following act was "scum".

"arresting officers beat Louima with their fists, nightsticks, and hand-held police radios on the ride to the station.

On arriving at the station house, he was strip-searched and put in a holding cell.

The beating continued later, culminating with Louima being sexually assaulted in a bathroom at the 70th Precinct station house in Brooklyn. Officer Justin Volpe kicked Louima in the testicles, then, while Louima's hands were cuffed behind his back, he first grabbed onto and squeezed his testicles and then sodomized him with a broomstick, causing severe internal damage to his colon and bladder that required several operations to repair.

Volpe then walked through the precinct holding the bloody, excrement-stained instrument in his hand, indicating that he had "broke a man down."


Or that the following officers were "scum"

"NYPD subway sodomy incident refers to the circumstances of the October 15, 2008, arrest of Michael Mineo by New York City Police Department (NYPD) officers. The arresting police officers pinned Mineo to the ground, while Richard Kern, one of the officers, pulled down Mineo's pants and sodomized him with a police baton."

Or that the following officers are "scum"

"Amadou Bailo Diallo (September 2, 1975 – February 4, 1999) was a 23-year-old immigrant to the United States from Guinea, who was shot and killed on February 4, 1999, by four New York City Police Department plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Brendan Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss. The four men fired a total of 41 rounds"

 

[CDB]

I stated that "I guess that makes cops who gun down innocent civilians,no matter what race, "scum" as well."

you said "Only if they take joy in it and celebrate it."

How do you know they did not take joy and celebrate killing Amadou Diallo or raping Abner Louima? Because it was not on TV?

I believe he included Volpe in the scum category because, enjoyment or not, there's no legal reason for broom handle to end up in anyone's ass.

 

[CDB]

No,I base my arguments on actions,research,experience,etc. It doesn 't take a mind reader to know that the officer who committed the following act was "scum".

No. In actuality you have no arguments. You 'quote' random, semi on point research that usually proves nothing beyond the fact that it's hard to find a decent study design in the soft sciences, and when they do prove something it's usually some difference in perception of blacks and whites by blacks and whites. I hate to break it to you, it's a long throw from that to pervasive and powerfully influential systemic racism.