A Blatant Example of Mass Media Manipulation

Here's a for instance for ya:

I'm sure many of you are aware how often the usual suspects in the mainstream media made mention of the fact that, during the tea party rallies, "mostly white people" or "all I saw was white people" was repeated over and over from channel to channel.

Inferring that tea party participants were angry white racists. Even to the point that they referrred to black men as "white racists carrying guns".

---

I dare anyone to find one mention of the democrat union members protesting in the thousands in Wisconsin as a "mostly white crowd" or an "angry mob of white people" by any media outlet.

Why not? It's true - they're about 95% white and they're very angry... could it be because they are liberals protesting a conservative, instead of the conservative tea party people protesting a liberal president?

Sure it could...
 
Although I'm sure that there is quite a bit of spin on everything going out there, I think that your example is not that strong.

There's a difference between a mostly white crowd protesting a black person-- a mostly white crowd who is very different than the "true" tea party members who believe in limited government-- and a mostly white crowd protesting a specific action of a white person. Namely, one can be interpreted as influenced by racism while the other cannot.

Tea party candidates just voted to extend the PATRIOT act, which is basically in direct violation of what they are supposedly supporting. Many of the protesters joined the Tea Party because they were angry at the president. Some of them almost certainly joined for a racist reason-- they are angry because a black man is president, and it's easy to join a group that's already angry at the president. That doesn't mean that even the majority of them did, but even you must admit that the Tea Party would be an easy outlet for racists to attack the President regardless of his political stances.

On the other hand, the protesters in Wisconsin are protesting an extremely specific bill being passed, unlike many of the Tea Party protests which were against Obama's general stances on issues. And the mostly white crowd is protesting against the actions of a white politician, so I don't really see how it could be interpreted as racist if you're trying.

EDIT: I just looked back and realized how poorly written this post is... :roll:

Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say, though. I'm not saying that there isn't a spin that media puts on things (I don't think that any reasonable person would argue that), just that your example isn't especially strong or convincing.
 
Little Robot said:
EDIT: I just looked back and realized how poorly written this post is... :roll:

Hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say, though. I'm not saying that there isn't a spin that media puts on things (I don't think that any reasonable person would argue that), just that your example isn't especially strong or convincing.
Click to expand...

Oh, I realize exactly what your post said. It says you drink the media supplied koolaid that only racists think Obama is a bad president. :roll:
 
You may want to read it again, DB. All I said was that the Tea Party rallies almost certainly had a small minority of racists who seized the party as an easy way to vent their anger. I'm not saying that all Tea Party members are racist-- in fact, I specifically said that wasn't the case.
 
DammitBoy said:
It says you drink the media supplied koolaid that only racists think Obama is a bad president. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm really curious as to who you think the last "good" US president was and why...
 
.Pixote. said:
DammitBoy said:
It says you drink the media supplied koolaid that only racists think Obama is a bad president. :roll:
Click to expand...

I'm really curious as to who you think the last "good" US president was and why...
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan, because he was white... :mrgreen:

Little Robot said:
All I said was that the Tea Party rallies almost certainly had a small minority of racists who seized the party as an easy way to vent their anger.
Click to expand...

Based on what facts? Supplied to you by whom? Please source your claim.
 
"almost certainly"

Come on, DB. I'm being perfectly reasonable here. Think, if you were a racist and you wanted to attack the black president in some way, wouldn't you join a group holding giant rallies specifically designed to attack the president? That's my reasoning. It's not as if I'm saying that the Tea Party is inherently racist, just that there are probably some racists who used it to display their anger. :roll:
 
I could claim that "almost certainly" there are pedophiles in the crowd protesting in wisconsin.

See how that works?
 
Sure, but it's not as if Governor Walker is well known for cracking down on pedophilia, or as if the crowd is protesting (for the most part) the governor's general "policies" rather than this one specific piece of legislation he supports. On the other hand, Barack Obama is famously the first black president, and the Tea Party rallies were against Obama in general rather than a single piece of legislation (as far as I understand it, although I did get this from a probably biased media source).

I'm not trying to get into some flame war, but... come on. Things that were created for an honest purpose can be used by bad people. That doesn't mean that people who point this fact out are "sheep" or whatever you called me.
 
At this point I doubt there is any need to argue with him, guys. Let him live in his black and white (seewutididthere) utopia where pure-hearted Conservatives stand against the vile, lie-mongering Liberals. Extremist opinions are boring as hell anyway.
 
Little Robot said:
On the other hand, Barack Obama is famously the first black president, and the Tea Party rallies were against Obama in general rather than a single piece of legislation (as far as I understand it, although I did get this from a probably biased media source).
Click to expand...

Please keep posting. You are a perfect example of how the media manipulates opinion.

Plus your logic fail is hilareous. You've also reverted back to "They must hate him because he's black."

The TEA party is very specific about why they are protesting Obama's policies (taxed enough already). Go check out one of their sites and educate yourself.

If you want to see some overt racism, go to the liberal democrat protests where they want to impeach Justice Thomas. You'll find google results where protestors are filmed saying, "string him up" and "send him back to the fields". Only you won't see that on cnn or msnbc.

It's okay to be a racist if you hate conservative blacks...
 
Sure, I'm happy to say that there are racists at the protests against Justice Thomas as well. I'm not saying that they're exclusive to the Tea Party by any means. Any situation where a black person is being attacked will probably attract racists, regardless of party. I never said that racism is exclusive to conservatives or anything of the sort.

Also, by the way, I do know that the Tea Party stands for limited government. And I know that they are protesting Obama's "policies"-- in fact, I used that exact word in my previous post. My point was that the Tea Party rallies were not against a specific piece of legislation but against something that the president was doing "generally."

And when did I say that they must hate him because he's black? You're clearly misinterpreting what I'm saying, DB. All I said was that racists, who do hate him because he's black, will probably gravitate towards a group attacking him for other reasons simply because it's easy to attack him in that channel. Just like with the Justice Thomas examples you cited.

PS, "limited government" Tea Party candidates voted to extend the PATRIOT act.
 
Political rhetoric is mostly based on unproven facts and cliche`.

The problem with realizing this, having a moral compass pointed in the right direction, and being discriminant,

Is that you sink down into a hole of loneliness and a ostracized existence.
 
Little Robot said:
I do know that the Tea Party stands for limited government. And I know that they are protesting Obama's "policies"--

And when did I say that they must hate him because he's black?
Click to expand...

Right here;

Little Robot said:
On the other hand, Barack Obama is famously the first black president, and the Tea Party rallies were against Obama...
Click to expand...

You inferred it, same as the media does. Even though you also know there are perfectly legitimate reasons to oppose Obama in general and specifically his policies.

Race has nothing to do with it anymore than pedophilia has anything to do with the protests in wisconsin.

It is only inferred to discredit the opposition.
 
DB is right but kind of tiptoeing around an issue like some kind of liberal. I mean, DB, it's pretty clear that there is a racist faction within the Tea Party. I'm not sure you're denying this, but if you are, c'mon now...
It is another matter how this topic should be handled, and it is pretty clear it is no business of the media to try to discredit the movement as a whole based on a presumed minority. So, Little Robot, I then ask you: it might be easily inferred that there are racists amongst the Tea Party rallies. So? Why do you care, but what's more, why should the media highlight it in any way?
 
@DB:
No, you misunderstand. I guess that I could have been clearer, but let me lay it out.

1) There are racists in the world who want to attack Obama in some way.
2) There are legitimate rallies which attack Obama for actual reasons.
3) The racists, although a very small minority, are probably attracted to these rallies as a way to voice their racism/displeasure with a black president, as opposed to trying to start their own rallies which would not provide as wide-reaching a platform.

The reason I pointed out that Obama was the first black president was simply because the racists have a reason to attack him. Pedophiles have no real reason to attack Walker. Because racists have a reason to attack Obama, they are more likely to do so than pedophiles would be to attack Walker.

I mean, feel free to swap "Justice Thomas" for "Obama." It's the same argument.

@BN: Oh, well-- I'm not saying that it should be a big story or something. It should not really be a surprise, and it doesn't discredit the Tea Party as a political movement at all, for the reasons that have been mentioned many times in this discussion. Basically the reason I got into this discussion is because DB said that no one in the media is saying that there is a racist element in the Wisconsin protests, and that didn't make much sense as an example to me. So I posted something about it, and... well, it led here I guess.
 
I don't care if it's the same argument for Obama or Justice Thomas.

What I'm asking is the same reason DB brought this up in the first place: what does it matter to you that there are racists in the rally as long as racism isn't actually the rally's platform of protest? What's more important: what business is it of the media to highlight over and over that these rallies are predominantly white and angry, inferring in the typical "oh my god no racism"-paranoid world of the US that racism is a dominant motivator of these rallies? Remember, the topic here is mass media manipulation, and DB's point is that this is an example of such manipulation. I'd tend to agree with him.
EDIT: I see you edited. Well then, simply put: you're discussing another topic than the reason DB brought up this point. Consider his point within the topic of this thread, please don't go off-topic.

Though honestly, with the way debates are overdrawn in the American media, I can't blame anyone for manipulating. The audience is being blunted to honest messages and subdued reporting so fast that it's more a matter of how much manipulating you apply than whether you do so or not.
 
Hey, BN, I edited my post. I think that you read the one which I had written before I noticed your question/comment.

Basically, I don't think that it should be a big deal or a big worry, or discredit the Tea Party as a political movement. However, it does exist and there's not really a point in denying it like DB is doing. I guess that's my point?
 
And I edited my post in return.

I was wondering if DB is actually denying it, which is not that clear. Just realize that this is tangential to his point. It doesn't actually matter if there are racists in the rally (except if the actual reason for the rally is racism), what matters to his point is that media are using implications of an unproven supposition to discredit a movement. That is simply bad journalism.
 
Brother None said:
DB is right...
Click to expand...

So true, so true... :mrgreen:

Brother None said:
It doesn't actually matter if there are racists in the rally (except if the actual reason for the rally is racism), what matters to his point is that media are using implications of an unproven supposition to discredit a movement. That is simply bad journalism.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Brother None said:
I don't care if it's the same argument for Obama or Justice Thomas.

What I'm asking is the same reason DB brought this up in the first place: what does it matter to you that there are racists in the rally as long as racism isn't actually the rally's platform of protest? What's more important: what business is it of the media to highlight over and over that these rallies are predominantly white and angry, inferring in the typical "oh my god no racism"-paranoid world of the US that racism is a dominant motivator of these rallies? Remember, the topic here is mass media manipulation, and DB's point is that this is an example of such manipulation. I'd tend to agree with him.
Click to expand...

I've always said you were a smart lad...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top