The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:46:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote:




I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
scene.

I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
keep the peace and get supplies for people.

I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
be as negative as a description using "looters".

Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the law
into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the
necessary and proper thing to do.

The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
"vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is
generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term
originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law is
supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed and
worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in
one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect
themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the police
fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in
Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been
absolutely useless.

Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black
looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't
believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole
cloth.

It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were
forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence.
What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting
portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the
good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive
connotation. The origin of the word is irrelevant; the current
connotation of the word is all that is relevant when it comes to news
reporting.

George Will or William Safire (may he R.I.P) may do a column exploring
English usage and the origin of words and phrases, but news
journalists deal with present connotation. They are not, for example,
going to use the perfectly legitimate word "niggardly" in a news piece
after the 1999 Washington DC flap.

My criticism of Chris is that he blows his credibility when he
fabricates examples to make his point.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message


[...]

Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black
looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't
believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole
cloth.

[...]

A Google search on "fox vigilantes looters 'new orleans'" gets nearly 4,500
hits. The general thrust is that Fox more than any other station pushed the
line that in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the mainly black
population of New Orleans descended into an orgy of looting and violence
that justified a strong police/military response (for example,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168269,00.html). It followed this up
with a "documentary" series on post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans called
K-ville that glamourised the New Orleans police as some kind of thin blue
line in an outlaw city when in reality it is notorious for its corruption,
racism and inefficiency (for example,
http://www.counterpunch.org/flaherty09152007.html).

If anything, the role of white vigilantes killing black men was underplayed
by the media, especially by Fox. The full and disturbing account was
compiled by crime journalist A.C. Thompson of the Nation. His full article
and and interview about how it came to be can be found at
http://www.alternet.org/story/114286...rina_flooding/.

The major points I found in only a few minutes search were that:

1. Fox pushed the demonisation of the black population of New Orleans by
exaggerating the extent of the violence and looting;
2. The media generally underplayed the actions of white vigilantes and the
refusal of the NOPD to investigate these crimes;
3. The implication is that the media, with Fox leading the way, played upon
racial stereotypes that distorted the reporting of the facts.

Now, I don't want to get buried in the details of this particular argument,
but I do want to suggest some of you might want to think about
short-circuiting these endless he-said/she-said subthreads by doing some
homework, especially on things that are easily checked. Who knows, people
might end up learning something.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:08:09 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message


[...]

Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black
looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't
believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole
cloth.

[...]

A Google search on "fox vigilantes looters 'new orleans'" gets nearly 4,500
hits. The general thrust is that Fox more than any other station pushed the
line that in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the mainly black
population of New Orleans descended into an orgy of looting and violence
that justified a strong police/military response (for example,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168269,00.html). It followed this up
with a "documentary" series on post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans called
K-ville that glamourised the New Orleans police as some kind of thin blue
line in an outlaw city when in reality it is notorious for its corruption,
racism and inefficiency (for example,
http://www.counterpunch.org/flaherty09152007.html).

If anything, the role of white vigilantes killing black men was underplayed
by the media, especially by Fox. The full and disturbing account was
compiled by crime journalist A.C. Thompson of the Nation. His full article
and and interview about how it came to be can be found at
http://www.alternet.org/story/114286...rina_flooding/.

The major points I found in only a few minutes search were that:

1. Fox pushed the demonisation of the black population of New Orleans by
exaggerating the extent of the violence and looting;
2. The media generally underplayed the actions of white vigilantes and the
refusal of the NOPD to investigate these crimes;
3. The implication is that the media, with Fox leading the way, played upon
racial stereotypes that distorted the reporting of the facts.

Now, I don't want to get buried in the details of this particular argument,
but I do want to suggest some of you might want to think about
short-circuiting these endless he-said/she-said subthreads by doing some
homework, especially on things that are easily checked. Who knows, people
might end up learning something.

I would like to suggest that you might want to think about reading the
posts I've made and addressing what I've said and not what you seem to
think I've said.

I've made no comments about Fox's handing of the Katrina aftermath
conditions. I haven't maintained that Fox did or did not demonize the
black population. I haven't maintained that any reporting agency
presented biased or unbiased stories. I haven't maintained that Fox
did or did not play on racial stereotyping. I haven't commented on
any of that.

What I objected to was Chris's comment "I recall during the floods in
New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black
criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and
get supplies for people." He used this as a example of words used on
Fox programming to portray a "different scene".

I don't believe he heard that. I believe that he made it up.

I do not believe that any journalist on any station or with any news
medium would use "vigilante" as a positive comparison to the negative
"looters".

Making claims that he can't support by providing a cite is bad, but
making up quotes to support a claim is worse.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 18:08:09 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:

[...]

Now, I don't want to get buried in the details of this particular
argument, but I do want to suggest some of you might want to think
about short-circuiting these endless he-said/she-said subthreads by
doing some homework, especially on things that are easily checked.
Who knows, people might end up learning something.

I would like to suggest that you might want to think about reading the
posts I've made and addressing what I've said and not what you seem to
think I've said.

I've made no comments about Fox's handing of the Katrina aftermath
conditions. I haven't maintained that Fox did or did not demonize the
black population. I haven't maintained that any reporting agency
presented biased or unbiased stories. I haven't maintained that Fox
did or did not play on racial stereotyping. I haven't commented on
any of that.

True.

What I objected to was Chris's comment "I recall during the floods in
New Orleans there was a comment that there were gangs of black
criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to keep the peace and
get supplies for people." He used this as a example of words used on
Fox programming to portray a "different scene".

True.

I don't believe he heard that. I believe that he made it up.

This is where people (I'm not picking on you particularly) slip into the
endless he said/she said subthreads that go nowhere. What I showed was a
context of natural disaster, media demonisation of the black population and
largely under-reported white vigilantiism in which it is easy for memory to
make errors or conflate elements of different stories. The way out of these
endlessly repetitive threads that establish nothing is to do some homework.

I do not believe that any journalist on any station or with any news
medium would use "vigilante" as a positive comparison to the negative
"looters".

Had you checked the first link I gave you'd have found anecdotal evidence in
the first paragraph to support your claim:

"Thousands of National Guardsmen and women armed with food, water and
weapons streamed into the hurricane-ravaged New Orleans on Friday to bring
relief to the suffering and take back the streets from the looters and armed
vigilantes."

Making claims that he can't support by providing a cite is bad, but
making up quotes to support a claim is worse.

Maybe he made it up, maybe he made an error, maybe it's true and it's on
YouTube. I don't know. But for heaven's sake, let's all please move on.
Somewhere. Anywhere.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Chris H" wrote in message

The religious right in the US is no different to the religious fanatics
anywhere else.

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics cutting people's hands and
feet off for not properly following religious law?

How about the KKK lynching people?

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics stoning a girl to death on
suspicion of her having had illicit sex with someone?

Here you see religious fatantics bombing clinics and assasinating
doctors.

--
Ray Fischer

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:46:03 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:14:07 +0100, Chris H wrote:




I do understand but having seem FOX news and many others the same
pictures with slightly different words can portray a very different
scene.

I recall during the floods in New Orleans there was a comment that there
were gangs of black criminals looting and white vigilantes trying to
keep the peace and get supplies for people.

I don't believe this either. The meaning of the word "vigilantes"
would be understood by any professional journalist, and not used to
describe "keeping the peace". A description using "vigilantes" would
be as negative as a description using "looters".

Not necessarily. "Vigilantes" implies a group of citizens that "take the
law
into their own hands," to use the common phrase. Sometimes that is the
necessary and proper thing to do.

The word "vigilantes" does not mean upholding the law. Vigilantes
operate outside of the law and contrary to the law. Any use of
"vigilante" has negative meaning and negative connotation.

It has that meaning and connotation for you, because of the way it is
generally used and because you presumably don't know how the term
originated.. But when there is no law organization doing the job the law
is
supposed to do, and peaceful, honest citizens are being attacked, robbed
and
worse -- as obviously was the case in New Orleans -- then the vigilante in
one form or another becomes necessary. What else can people do to protect
themselves? Remember that in New Orleans during Katrina, many of the
police
fled the city (two of them stole a police cruiser and were arrested in
Texas) and the mayor fled also. Whatever police remained seem to have been
absolutely useless.

Chris's comment was that Fox News reported that there were black
looters and white vigilantes keeping the peace. I flat-out don't
believe this. I think Chris is making up an example out of whole
cloth.

It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were
forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence.
What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting
portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the
good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive
connotation. The origin of the word is irrelevant; the current
connotation of the word is all that is relevant when it comes to news
reporting.

I agree, I cannot imagine reporters using the word "vigilantes" in anything
but a negative way.


George Will or William Safire (may he R.I.P) may do a column exploring
English usage and the origin of words and phrases, but news
journalists deal with present connotation. They are not, for example,
going to use the perfectly legitimate word "niggardly" in a news piece
after the 1999 Washington DC flap.

guffaw!

I remember that well, though I didn't recall what the city was. You're
right, of course.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper wrote:
It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were
forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence.
What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting
portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the
good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive

I know it's not FN, but the AP was pretty embarassed when a photo of
blacks "looting" groceries was constasted with another photo
of whites "scavanging".

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controve...hotos_captions

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Neil Harrington wrote:
Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics cutting people's hands and
feet off for not properly following religious law?

In Islamic law, cutting off a hand is the punishment for grand theft.

.....believe it or not, there are actually repeat offenders.

But aside from Saudi Arabia, I'm not aware of any *government* that
subscribes to this.

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics stoning a girl to death on
suspicion of her having had illicit sex with someone?

Citation, please? The only Islamic law I'm aware of prescribes this as
punishment upon *conviction*, which takes four eye-witnesses to the
actual act. It's actually pretty rare.

Where in the U.S. do you see religious fanatics gang-raping a girl to punish
her family for some alleged breach of religious or tribal rules?

And again, what legitimate government does this?

Do you ever *think* before you write all this rubbish?

Ditto. I can recall a few stories about the backwaters of Kentucky and
West Virginia that do things.

Because if you're going to use backwater hicks as a basis for judging a
billion or so people, you might as well apply that principle
consistently.

- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On 08 Oct 2009 17:44:39 GMT, Stuffed Crust
wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper wrote:
It's not that I don't believe that some citizens of New Orleans were
forced to act in their own defense absent authorized police presence.
What I don't believe is Chris's claim that Fox News reporting
portrayed black looters as the bad guys and white vigilantes as the
good guys. No journalist would use "vigilantes" with a positive

I know it's not FN, but the AP was pretty embarassed when a photo of
blacks "looting" groceries was constasted with another photo
of whites "scavanging".

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Controve...hotos_captions

That would have been embarrassing to the AP. What many people do not
realize is that photo captions, headlines, and sub-heads are not
written by the reporter(s) who came up with the story or the
photographer who took the picture. Many reporters and photographers
have been embarrassed by similar gaffes done by sub-editors who scan
the article.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 17:11:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

I am only wrong in your eyes, Tony. I find that you will seek out some
minor
discrepancy in what I say, and seize on it to make your
point....Savageduck
does this frequently too. I do think in generalities, rather than
specifics,

The devil is in the details. Although, claiming that US unemployment
is at 20% or thinking that "vigilante" is an antonym for "looter" is
hardly a petty detail. You and Bill Graham share a propensity for
bungling the specifics.

I never said either one of those things....The unemployment is currently at
9.8% nationally, although here in Oregon it is closer to 12% A vigilante is
an unlicensed policeman.



and I don't argue when you correct my specifics. But I can see the
difference between minor specifics and my general logic.

Oddly enough, this could very well be the defense that one of those
political commentators like Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh,
or Sean Hannity would use when caught out. They might completely
twist and spin the truth, but would claim that their general logic is
correct even if their specifics are not.

Please point out
where my general logic has been wrong, and I will change my thinking
instantly.

I would not expect you to. You have a strong bias against the US and
a disdain for the US military. You have deep-seated misconceptions
about the American public.

I believe in the basic intelligence of the, "American public". I mistrust
the government, and with good cause.....So what? I believe that Obama should
give the 40 K troops to the generals fighting the war in Afghanistan. They
know what they need. He does not.

Pointing out your errors or misapprehensions isn't going to change
your thinking. And, frankly, attempting to enlighten you isn't a game
worth the candle.

Certainly your attempting to enlighten me isn't worth anything.....You don't
know enough to enlighten anybody. You are a liberal.....Enough said.