Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 23, 2019

Reactions, Retractions, and Re-reactions

So we've all seen the videos of the MAGA kids and the Native American man in DC, then we've all seen the pushback claiming we didn't see what we saw, then maybe you saw the main kid making the rounds on TV saying he has nothing to apologize for, or you saw Trump tweeting they did nothing wrong. The entire incident is mind-numbing and such a perfect microcosm of the bullshit we've all endured for the past 2 and a half years.

Let me start with this: in my opinion, the longer videos change nothing. The MAGA *cough cough Klan cough* hat wearing kids were disrespectful and mocked the Native. The initial angry response to the incident was a response to that, and the fact remains that many people see it as disrespectful. But, "disrespect" is a matter of opinion. Maybe you saw the kids' actions as racist and disrespectful, maybe you saw their actions as simply typically assholeish for a group of kids, or, maybe you didn't see them as disrespectful at all. I don't see how that's possible, but it's still all a matter of opinion.

And yes, there was more to the story, and more is added to the story every day because as a society we'd rather focus on shit like this than something more meaningful. Part of it is that we feel helpless to change meaningful things (all of my calls to Senators and angry videos have done nothing to end our government's treatment of immigrants or our multiple wars) so we rant and rave about shit like this. And here I am, still doing it. But I think that as ridiculous as the whole situation is and how far out of hand it has gotten, the incident is illuminating, and I'll try to make my final say right here.

First off, there was a group of Black Israelites harassing everybody there. Black Israelites are out of their minds in general and they were definitely in the wrong here. As anyone who has walked past them in NYC or any other major city, the best way to deal with them spouting nonsense is to ignore and walk on by. They initiated the entire problem, and that is important to understand, but again, doesn't change anything.

Secondly, some people responding to the initial videos absolutely took it too far. There is no reason to post these kids' names and addresses online. For what? Are you going to go harass kids? Threaten them? They were being little shits, they didn't hurt anybody. I'm all for protesting at Mitch McConnell's house, he's a public official doing harm with his policies, but you don't harass and threaten dickhead kids. You make a video yelling at them and keep it moving!

Thirdly, there is a larger societal problem with people reacting to things without fully thinking them through or knowing the whole situation. On social media there is an imperative to be the first to say or post something, which means a lot of people don't fully verify what they are saying or posting. Of course, that's usually what goes viral, not the facts. However, the facts of this incident don't change my response to the kids' behavior.

Fourthly, the media and people on social media did get some things wrong. Many people thought Nathan Phillips was just sitting there and the kids surrounded him. That didn't happen (that certainly would have been worse). Some outlets called him a Vietnam vet (I did as well) but he said he was a Vietnam-era vet in his interview. CNN then ran with "Vietnam Vet." Hey, maybe Trump is right about CNN being shitty? *insert broken clock metaphor*



So now for the incident in question. Nathan Phillips was there for an Indigenous People's March, and the MAGA kids were there for a March for Life. They both had a right to be there. (There's a whole other article to be written about Catholic schools letting kids wear political paraphernalia on a school sanctioned trip, and the fact that Catholic schools bus in kids for an anti-abortion event, but that's for another time.) Black Israelites were there (maybe for the March for Life? they actually hold beliefs that align much closer with Trumpers than liberals or any other group) to start shit, because that's what they do wherever they go.

As I see it, Nathan Phillips walks up between the two groups (MAGA and the Black Israelites) to diffuse things which seemed to be getting out of hand. Some people think he never should've done that, but that's what peacemakers do, take initiative before things get worse. No other adults were being responsible, so he took it upon himself. He's clearly not aggressive (unless you really hate drums, I guess). Now, the main kid (Smug Smirker) claims he was personally trying to diffuse things. So he stood in Phillip's face smirking while the rest of the kids chanted and laughed and acted like asshole kids. It's certainly possible Smug Smirker wasn't trying to disrespect him, but that's exactly how it looks, and many other kids are actively mocking Phillips, so it's hard to separate one possibly non-disrespectful kid from a group of his disrespectful friends right behind him.

It’s also impossible to disconnect the MAGA hats from what it has come to represent. History and culture and politics frame the situation,which is what mostly caused the outrage. The kids can claim they're not racist (despite mocking Natives) but the hat is definitely a symbol of racism. People have literally used the words “Trump” and “MAGA” to taunt minorities across the country (and a study showed that areas that voted for Trump saw an increase in bullying in schools). Also, Trump’s policies are directly harmful to minorities, including Natives. Not to mention, Trump himself constantly insults people, even using Native names as insults. Teens and kids may not make those connections, but it’s the same as wearing confederate flags on their clothes: they might not fully understand the implications but that doesn’t erase the implications. I'm sure part of wearing the hat is being seen as rebellious (although supporting a guy who controls the federal government is not exactly rebellious) but it’s not like they're wearing a weed shirt or an offensive band name. MAGA means something specific. Trump has been consistently racist throughout his life and as President, and if you search #MAGA on Twitter, its not exactly a bunch of people talking about equality and world peace. So for most people, its impossible to separate all that hate and actual harmful policy from a kid wearing a MAGA hat.

I know many people treat politics like a reality show or sports and just cheer on their “team”, so to them, getting offended by a MAGA hat just means you're too sensitive and they "won" somehow. But politics actually affects people. People aren't upset by the obnoxiously ugly hat, they're offended by the obnoxiously ugly policies and worldview it represents. Kids acting like obnoxious brats wearing that hat is an ugly spectacle, and again, none of the longer videos or hand-wringing articles change that.

Let's give the kids the benefit of the doubt and say they weren't trying to be racist (despite the school's history of racism). It doesn't change they fact that they were being little dickheads. And not understanding how white privilege works doesn't mean you don't benefit from it. These little white kids, even with chaperones from a Catholic school there with them, are allowed to be little dickheads with no recourse. In fact, not only are they allowed to act like that, their actions are then defended by their parents and the entire right wing media industry. The smug smiles and laughter just symbolize that white privilege that they will always be able to use to belittle people with no accountability. I don’t like to always compare and say “what if this was a group of black kids” but in this case I think it’s enlightening to picture that. A group of minority kids surrounding a white veteran and acting like dicks would have brought the National Guard out. Laura Ingraham would still be ranting and raving about the failure of the entire black culture.

So that's my reaction and response to the initial situation. The kids were acting like dicks and were representative of the shitty behavior of the political movement they support.

But of course the story didn't stop there. Conservative media was not going to let these white kids get ridiculed and judged! It's not like they were in a school shooting or something: it's perfectly okay to mock school shooting survivors, or even call them actors! It's not like they were killed by a racist loser, it's perfectly ok to mock that dead kid, too!

An avalanche of defenders came through immediately. There was a longer video that claimed to tell a different story (it doesn't) and right wing media sites published articles about how the media got it wrong again (it's hilarious to me how right wing media outlets claim that they are not a part of the mainstream media. Guys, when you have White House press credentials, YOU ARE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA! Fox News still claims its not part of mainstream media, and it gets the highest ratings!). Then, because mainstream media is obsessed with "both sides-ing" every single situation no matter how obviously one-sided something is, they all published articles claiming that "we all rushed to judgement!" (we didn't). CNN was on the front lines pushing back against criticism of the kids. Of course, CNN neglected to mention that the Smug Smirker kids' parents hired a PR firm started by a CNN pundit. Whatever! The story now became "Media got it wrong! White kids can't be racist!"

Other media sites were quick to publish a retraction so they could claim to be objective: "We show both sides of the story, you can trust us!" they all rushed to say. Except, this "non-biased objectivity" doesn't always lead to the truth. Think of the Obama birther conspiracy. Instead of just saying it's bullshit, mainstream media always framed it as "many people think that Obama was not born in the US" because they didn't want to upset crazy conservatives. In this incident, they rushed to say there was more video, but didn't explain how that changed anything. They just wanted to cut off any criticism for "not showing the whole story."

So the kid is now making the rounds on the talk shows, and the President himself chimed in (of course) to say that media is the enemy of the people. He even invited them to the White House! Sarah Sanders said she's never seen people try to ruin kids lives like they did with these kids from Covington. This is a woman who works for an administration that tore toddlers away from their parents and locked them up in cages. This is a woman who works for a man who called for the execution of 5 black teens despite them being found innocent. Spare me the tears over these asshole kids.


All of this just serves to solidify the issue that most people had with these kids in the first place. We knew, (just like they know) that these kids would always have this cloak of invincibility, the white privilege that would defend their right to act like assholes. That is what the "smirk heard round the world" symbolized: "We're gonna do whatever we want and we'll get away with it; in fact, we'll be considered the victims." And here we are.

Even many liberals are buying into this new narrative because they don't want to be seen as biased (this is a weakness that conservative media always exploits: conservatives are not concerned with bias in their favor). They also want to believe that these kids couldn't be that bad. They want to believe that the younger generation will always be more progressive. They also see their own kids in these kids. Revising the story  reassures them that these kids weren't actually all that bad. They need to believe that everyone is redeemable. Well, I believe that kids are redeemable, but only if they are taught how they were wrong in the first place. That's not happening here, and it's also a larger problem in society. We seek to forgive people before they've actually earned our forgiveness.

Since we're all taking a deep dive into this story to remove any "bias," let's keep diving. Take the reaction of one of the parents: they immediately blamed “black Muslims.” Again, the Black Israelites were in the wrong, but its says a lot about people who can't distinguish religions and label a fringe Christian/Hebrew religion as "Muslim." It says something about the mentality of the parents, which is reflected in the kids. (The story I linked to earlier about the school's basketball fans in blackface also says a little about their mentality: some people really don't see blackface, or saying the n-word, or doing tomahawk chops at a Native, as racist.) There were also videos showing the same MAGA kids harassing girls. But we don't need to know any of that to know that what they did in the original video was wrong.

I think a lot of people deserve criticism here (the Black Israelites, parents, kids, chaperones) but it’s interesting to me how quick people are to excuse the actions of young white men, whereas minority teens are held to adult standards (minorities are charged as adults way more often than white kids). That's actual racism, but to many white people, there's a belief that being called racist is on par with actual racism.

These kids act like assholes, then act like victims and say they have nothing to apologize for, and their parents and entire media outlets agree. On the one hand, they say kids need time to grow and learn from mistakes, on the other hand they're saying these kids made no mistakes. Which is it? I absolutely think kids need to have room to make mistakes and learn, but the problem is, judging by their response and their parents’ response, they will never learn. They did nothing wrong, people judged them wrongly for it, now they are the victims: that's the lesson they're taking.

If you take all politics and history out of the situation (I mean, you can't and shouldn't do that, but let's do it for sake of argument) it's just a bunch of kids being asshole kids. Shitty, but not enough to become a viral video or to write an article about. The situation became bigger because history and politics and culture do matter and are involved in every situation whether we recognize it or not. There's a reason people get offended by a white guy saying the n-word and not a black guy. That's because of history and culture and politics. One is acceptable and one is not. A white guy can certainly try to go around saying it and using black people's use of the word as a defense (some guys do!) but most people will see him as the clueless dickhead that he is. These white kids can say they were just laughing and chanting and staring at a Native man while they’re all wearing MAGA hats, but to most people who have paid any attention to what Trump has done, the MAGA hat itself is a provocation.

So I do think it’s important to look at the whole picture and situation before judging, and in this situation, the more I look at it and look at the history and politics that are intertwined in the moment, it still pisses me off even more. The more I look at the media's reaction, the less hope I have for Truth in the future.

But yeah, the kids lives shouldn’t be destroyed, and they wont be. I can't wait to watch Smug Smirker's inevitable daily show with Tomi Lahren!

I Love You All...Class Dismissed. 

Friday, May 8, 2015

Social Media Revolution and Big Media Laziness



We have all heard the term "Lamestream Media" or some variation of it. Depending on your political persuasion, you might see it as an obvious ploy by people like Sarah Palin to discredit any and all news reports about themselves and distract people from their own ineptitude, or you may see it as an honest indictment of the mainstream media. The fact is, it's probably both.

 Don't look so smug, lady, that sentence still called you an idiot. 

We all have some understanding that the media exists to sell us a story and that we shouldn't believe everything we hear on the news. We may recognize that a lot of it is bullshit or biased, but we still tune in, expecting some semblance of reality or professionalism. It's similar to how we all know not to believe the "Diet" or "All Natural" labels on foods yet we still hold on to the belief that there must be some level of truth to the claims. I truly believed that companies can't lie to sell their products because I was always told false advertising is illegal. They can't just make up shit and print it on their labels...the consumer protection board will handle it if they do!

Turns out, I'm dumb. Companies have no problem lying their asses off. Yeah, it is illegal, and some do get caught and have to pay out fines, but at that point the damage is done. The company has made millions and the general public tends to believe a company's initial claims despite any retractions or lawsuits. How many people still think VitaminWater is a healthy alternative to soda?

It's maddening but I can't blame individuals for their misperceptions; the media is happy to go along with corporate lies. Or police lies. Or government lies. 

A lot of that has to do with money interests and the few giant media conglomerates that control the news. Some news sites or individual articles are paid for directly by advertisers who absolutely have a say in what gets published. That has a crippling effect on the news we receive, without a doubt.

However, not everything is a conspiracy. Or at least, the conspiracy doesn't cover the whole thing. A big reason, maybe even the biggest reason, for the poor quality of news we receive is the sheer laziness of the media. So on one hand, the media is controlled by corporate interests, devoted strictly to getting clicks on their websites, thereby focusing on "click-bait" stories. On the other hand, they are simply fucking lazy. If a police chief or a government official or a company spokesperson tells them a story, that's what they go with because all they have to do now is summarize the report. Why question anything? When has the government ever lied?? If journalists decide to take it a step further and do some actual investigative journalism, most don't go too far out of their way. Instead of finding witnesses or interviewing people involved in the events, they can simply turn to the world's biggest supplier of firsthand news: Twitter. 

In February, 2015, three Muslim students were killed by a man in North Carolina. Apparently he was enraged over a parking dispute, but the man had a history of lashing out and even threatening the three students and their family. They felt it was largely because of their faith. We won't get into the absolute obviousness of the reasoning behind the murders (hatred of Muslims); instead we'll focus on the coverage of the incident.

Most media outlets rushed to deny any faith-based motive for the murder and instead went with the official police report that said it "may have" been caused by the parking dispute, completely ignoring the family's claims of past harassment and hatred. Unlike the people shouting "damn liberal mainstream media!" I don't think the mainstream media has a liberal slant; however, there are plenty of media outlets that have clear biases, both liberal and conservative. The more liberal minded media outlets focused on the faith aspect . Although I have a very liberal viewpoint on most issues, and I do think the violence was motivated by Muslim hatred, I still have issues with their coverage.

Besides pushing the faith angle heavily (which I understand since mainstream outlets were denying the faith angle heavily) they also used a lot of social media feedback. Now this can sometimes add context or... something (I guess?) to the story. It allows readers to hear what others are saying about the story, which is good. They could go talk to people, or I don't know, go on Twitter themselves, but sure, it's legitimate "journalism." Anyways, on any article nowadays (and even on some television news, especially ESPN) there's always a few tweets included in the coverage. Now, I love Twitter because you get to hear from some very smart, funny, and/or informed people, and often you can hear firsthand accounts from people involved in the story. It's also ridiculous because you get to hear from every backwater hobo with a wifi connection (how do they get wifi in the swamp anyway?). That's why a tweet from "@AmericanGriper" (that's me! Follow back y'all!) was included right next to a tweet from esteemed biologist Richard Dawkins in a story about the NC murders on the website ThinkProgress.org. Click this link to see the story, scroll to the bottom to see the tweets.

Now, I agree that my opinion on any given topic is just as important as Richard Dawkins', but I don't think most people would. In fact, when I saw the article and came across my own tweet, I was really fucking confused. Proud. But confused. I'm not saying it's completely unnecessary to hear from Average Joe about news events, but when everyone is given an equal platform to speak on, who do we listen to? If the media is simply going to use tweets for research, at the very least, they should look into who is tweeting. Otherwise you end up in really embarrassing situations.

Such as...

When Kanye West released the first of several songs with the last surviving Beatle (shhh Ringo, go back to the basement) Twitter was set ablaze with posts asking who this guy was and why Kanye would work with such an unknown artist. One commenter even posted: "Kanye has a great ear for talent. This Paul McCartney guy gonna be huge."

Idiots! How can you live on this planet and not know who Paul McCartney is?

Well, turns out the real idiots are the media outlets who reported on this. Apparently they had never been on Twitter and were unfamiliar with the concept of "sarcasm" or "humor". The guy who made the above post is Desus Nice, an absolutely hilarious Tweeter with his own podcast and show. He's know for his sarcastic wit and if you looked at any other tweet on his page you would recognize that instantly. Apparently that is too much to ask of the media. They saw one tweet, decided that the narrative of "stupid millennials don't even know music icons" was click-bait worthy and ran with it. All the old people can laugh at the stupid millennials and all the millennials who know Paul McCartney can laugh at their inferior peers. The perfect story!


 Giving Desus another golden opportunity to make fun of white people...dammit media! 
You make it really hard to be a white guy! Waaah!


This happens a lot. Like, a friggin LOT. "The scoop" has always been important to media outlets, but with the speed of the internet and social media (and social interest) it is even more vital for news organizations to be first to report, even if they are wrong. Combine that with perpetual laziness, and you end up with the shitty reporting we have now. The worst part about this is that whoever gets the "scoop" on the story sets the tone, and in fact, provides all other media outlets with the particulars of the case. Take the Freddie Gray/Baltimore story for example. When the Washington Post published a story titled "Prisoner in van thought [Freddie] Gray was ‘trying to injure himself’" every other outlet rushed to publish the story, using only Washington Post as the source. The absolute least amount of effort is put into covering a story. Simply find the stories already written and rewrite. Oh, and if you happen to be wrong, which they were in this case, don't worry about it! Simply update the story with slightly different wording and make sure not to promote the corrections!

We often see this rush to get a scoop mixed with ultimate laziness in stories of people being outraged at an incident/person/event/any number of things that outrage people these days. There is plenty to be outraged about (police brutality, lgbt equality, pollution, endangered species, etc.) but some people choose the most random, inconsequential things to obsess about and they make sure their feelings are heard. Over and over and over again. So when you hear a news story about people being OUTRAGED that so and so did this, try to get a sense of how many people are actually feeling this way. Ten people raging about the fact that there are not enough straight white men on national television is meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, a thousand people outraged about something, let's say a sports team's new uniforms or whatever, probably doesn't mean anything, unless that team has only a thousand fans. The Mets would probably be in trouble but that's about it.

http://www.the10and3.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/newyork_sad.jpg 
I don't care about baseball anymore but I will absolutely take any opportunity to bash the Mets.

The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example. They seemingly show up at every military funeral and are on the news almost any time the topic of gay marriage or gay rights is discussed. You would think the "Church" has a million members with the amount of publicity their "cause" receives.

They have 40 members. Most from the same sick family. Yet we all know who they are and what they stand for. They are the perfect villains. Even ordinary homophobic people think Westboro crosses the line. So why do we hear about them all the time? Media outlets understand that if you include their name in a story, you're guaranteed to get some hate clicks: people literally reading the story to become enraged at the group and feel better about themselves because no matter what they've done in their lives, nothing is worse than what these assholes do every day.

So here's how it works: a small group of people (e.g. Westboro) get OUTRAGED at something. Media reports on it, never mentioning the size of the outrage. People (red-blooded Americans like you and I) get outraged about those other people being outraged. Media reports on the backlash outrage. Outsiders who don't care much about the topic are forced to pick a side because neutrality is for cowards. Stand up man...you too must be outraged!

The media wants your outrage. It draws ratings. When you're angry, you are more likely to comment on the article, which means you have clicked on their page and given them your precious view. When you comment, especially an angry, impassioned comment, you are likely to check back to see if anyone responded to you, thereby driving their number of views up even more. All they care about is whether you clicked on their website. They don't care about accuracy, ethics, accountability, nothing. They don't even care if you read the whole thing. They only care about clicks.

All of this gives us a false sense of the magnitude of any outrage; even worse, when topics arise that do deserve outrage, people don't take those things seriously, lumping them in with the "false outrage" group. So now everyone is simultaneously outraged by nothing and everything.

Thanks media!

And if you think this is all bullshit and you're in the comment section typing in all caps "HOW IS THIS NEWS?" hoping that the Editor in Chief will read your comment and reassess his purpose in life, causing him to only publish stories worthy of your highly esteemed readership, you have fallen directly in their trap. You clicked on the article to comment. They won.

And we--all of us--lose.

But hey, at least I got on the news! That's cool right?!

I Love You All...Class Dismissed.