whitesoxfan101 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 02:39 PM) "The poster who started this thread is a racist in denial of his own hate" You didn't just type that?? I'll let the admins decide if they can some how interpret that to mean something else. Perhaps you need to learn the definition of threat....I did nothing of the sort. I simply said you wouldn't dare call me a racist to my face...and I stand by that. Well first of all, I said the impression I got (reading is a skill) is that both you and Mr. Robertson's thoughts could certainly be perceived as racist. Now that doesn't mean either of you are racist (actually that's a lie, Robertson is racist, but I can't speak for you, you aren't on TV a lot), but it means that your thoughts on the Jena 6 give that impression, that's all. And if you tell somebody they wouldn't say something like that to your face, that implies there is a threat of response from you if I say it. Once again, I cannot speak for you, but I can speak for the implications of your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) If the media plays up the interview as "total truth". It is their job to question things, not just go along with the politically correct version of a story. Plays up? Perhaps. Would prefer if the media could not advertise? That seems to be where they get into trouble. The breaking news alerts and stay tuned kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 03:24 PM) Plays up? Perhaps. Would prefer if the media could not advertise? That seems to be where they get into trouble. The breaking news alerts and stay tuned kind of stuff. I think they need to look deeper into stories they decide to give that much attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 03:32 PM) I think they need to look deeper into stories they decide to give that much attention. Yes. It would be easier if we expected news the next day or week. But we want news all day and all night. Not certain how to fix that. People get interested and tune in. I think they are more reflecting our own interests. And if we are not interested, and they start pushing something, people complain they are being "activists". Perhaps the Soviets had it right with TAAS. Official news right from the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 03:38 PM) Yes. It would be easier if we expected news the next day or week. But we want news all day and all night. Not certain how to fix that. People get interested and tune in. I think they are more reflecting our own interests. And if we are not interested, and they start pushing something, people complain they are being "activists". Perhaps the Soviets had it right with TAAS. Official news right from the source. It's fine to give out breaking news. But they were on this story for months, they decided to go with the pc version of the story (white kids bad, black kids good). When the story was actually much more complicated. They had plenty of time to dig deeper into the situation. And no, having some lame soviet style news agency is a bad idea. Even with our sad state of network news, it's still better than that. Edited February 18, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 03:44 PM) It's fine to give out breaking news. But they were on this story for months, they decided to go with the pc version of the story (white kids bad, black kids good). When the story was actually much more complicated. They had plenty of time to dig deeper into the situation. And no, having some lame soviet style news agency is a bad idea. Even with our sad state of network news, it's still better than that. Actually TAAS was very good, absent of their political coverage, which was very lame. But without any competition, they did not advertise, and didn't have the pressure to have high ratings. The news outlets did have plenty of time to dig into the situation, but is hiring a bunch of private investigators our medias responsibility? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but we can point out all sorts of issues, but solutions don't seem to be around the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 04:36 PM) but is hiring a bunch of private investigators our medias responsibility? They already have a bunch of employees whom should be digging into stories and trying to find the facts. They are called journalists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 04:42 PM) They already have a bunch of employees whom should be digging into stories and trying to find the facts. They are called journalists So they should be ahead of the prosecutors? We're not going to cover the prosecutor or that big protest with 2,000 people who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars because our sources can not confirm the facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 04:46 PM) So they should be ahead of the prosecutors? We're not going to cover the prosecutor or that big protest with 2,000 people who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars because our sources can not confirm the facts? didn't the prosecutor want to charge the kids that attacked the other ones with attempted murder? I think thats what touched off the big controversy. Sure, cover the protests, but put things in context. They were led by Al Sharpton. The media ignores plenty of big protests which have people raising millions of dollars. I guess they just decided to go along with mob rule on this one. I think the media did a poor job covering the story. You think they did a good job. Maybe we should just leave it at that. Edited February 18, 2008 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) didn't the prosecutor want to charge the kids that attacked the other ones with attempted murder? I think thats what touched off the big controversy. Sure, cover the protests, but put things in context. They were led by Al Sharpton. The media ignores plenty of big protests which have people raising millions of dollars. I guess they just decided to go along with mob rule on this one. I think the media did a poor job covering the story. You think they did a good job. Maybe we should just leave it at that. I think the media can do a great job of covering lies. We want the media to point the camera everywhere and we want to see everything, and then let us decide. The old "all the news and let you decide". The more they inject themselves into the story, by being the investigators, instead of reporting on the real investigators, they get in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 03:23 PM) Well first of all, I said the impression I got (reading is a skill) is that both you and Mr. Robertson's thoughts could certainly be perceived as racist. Now that doesn't mean either of you are racist (actually that's a lie, Robertson is racist, but I can't speak for you, you aren't on TV a lot), but it means that your thoughts on the Jena 6 give that impression, that's all. And if you tell somebody they wouldn't say something like that to your face, that implies there is a threat of response from you if I say it. Once again, I cannot speak for you, but I can speak for the implications of your comments. You're hilarious...I paste your direct quote and you insist on telling me that's not what you said. Then you tell me reading is a skill?? You can backtrack now and say you meant 'our thoughts' can be 'perceived' as racist, which is still BS, but that is not what you wrote. Me telling you I don't think you would say something to my face is not indicative of any threat on my part, but a lack of testicular fortitude on yours. I will say it again. You would not call me a racist to my face. I'm not speaking of any consequences if you did, I'm just speaking of you not having the balls to get in my face and call me a racist with nothing to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) I'm just speaking of you not having the balls to get in my face and call me a racist with nothing to back it up. That card gets played very easily around here. The worst offender(s) are gone, but it still happens. That was one reason I asked where you were going with the article and probably why there are so few replies to the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 06:06 PM) That card gets played very easily around here. The worst offender(s) are gone, but it still happens. That was one reason I asked where you were going with the article and probably why there are so few replies to the thread. Well I certainly didn't think I would be called a racist. I just didn't think that card would be pulled out. I had the article sent to me and was kind of shocked to read some of the stuff and see the pictures. As well as the whereabouts of the $500,000 being unknown. I thought maybe some other people would be shocked as well. Maybe be like... yeah that's screwed up or yeah that was totally mishandled or whatever. I thought the reaction would be pretty a universal one. Honestly though...for someone to say their impression is the poster who started the thread is a racist in denial of his own hate, is just as bad as any other personal attack I have read on here. He knows absolutely nothing about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 06:43 PM) Well I certainly didn't think I would be called a racist. I just didn't think that card would be pulled out. I had the article sent to me and was kind of shocked to read some of the stuff and see the pictures. As well as the whereabouts of the $500,000 being unknown. I thought maybe some other people would be shocked as well. Maybe be like... yeah that's screwed up or yeah that was totally mishandled or whatever. I thought the reaction would be pretty a universal one. Honestly though...for someone to say their impression is the poster who started the thread is a racist in denial of his own hate, is just as bad as any other personal attack I have read on here. He knows absolutely nothing about me. Just like the original coverage was slanted and wrong, perhaps this too is slanted and wrong. And I know your pain, I was often accused by another poster as being a racist. That pissed me off more than any other remark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts