The NYC subway attacker (Black Supremacist) has vanished from the news.
We've not heard much, if anything, about Yaseem Jenkins whose father used him as a "human shield".
I haven't heard much about the case on Anthony Frazier. Certainly no one is saying his name or rioting over his death,
I wonder why some black homicides are worse than others?
6 comments:
re: Anthony Frazier. Here's what his family is saying in news reports.
"Meanwhile, Frazier’s family is urging something to be done about gun violence.
“We want all of the community activists, NPU leaders, pastors, community activists, if they could raise awareness about gun violence. This senseless bill that was just passed, horrendous,” Robinson said."
What bill just passed in Georgia? The one "allowing Georgia residents to carry handguns in public without a license or background check"
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/kemp-constitutional-carry-bill-allowing-handguns-without-license-georgia
Are you sure that's a story you want covered further? Are those black voices you want to listen to?
As to why some stories get covered more than others?
Well, the sad reality is that we are a violent nation with people killing other people - innocent people - all the time. The national news just doesn't cover every senseless act of violence all the time. There were over 20,000 murders last year and 19,000 of them were shootings (and 24,000 gun-use suicides).
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
That's over 50 gun murders a day, if my calculator is correct. NPR, CNN, BBC, etc, simply can't cover 50 gun murder stories every day. It's just not possible. Maybe if someone opened a Gun Murder News outlet (GMN - all the shootings, all the time)... MAYBE they could try to cover all those stories, but it would take a tremendous amount of resources to even try.
Also, "Each day on average, 30 Black Americans are killed by guns and more than 110 experience non-fatal injuries. At least every other day, a Black person is shot and killed by police."
https://everytownresearch.org/issue/gun-violence-black-americans/
So, even if the media tried to limit it to just black murders by guns, it would be impossible to cover all the murders.
So, that's why any one murder may not get national coverage. That's just reasonable, correct?
Now, why do SOME black killings get coverage and not others?
Well, because our nation has a very real and very problematic history of white violence and oppression of black people and because white extremism has become an increasing threat, and because of the real history of violence against black people by police, many news outlets have chosen (it appears) to focus on that for the purpose of trying to ameliorate and deal with the reality of white oppression of black people historically and with this troubling rise in white supremacy over the last years.
Now, you may think that's not worth focusing on, but apparently the media does and I don't see how it's unreasonable.
Also, because our black neighbors are saying NOW is the time to deal with that particular type of violence and they're looking to white allies and the media to step up and follow their lead, that may also play a role. Again, I find this very reasonable. Feel free to disagree.
It's NOT to say that some black people's deaths don't matter (remember: Black Lives Matter). Just that we're listening to our black neighbors and friends and striving to be an ally.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/27/906329303/as-nation-reckons-with-race-poll-finds-white-americans-least-engaged
Also, when you and other modern "conservatives" ask dishonest questions like "Why the silence?" and "Why doesn't the media talk about THESE murders?" it's part of the unhelpful, even diabolical attack and attempt to undermine confidence in "the media" which helps to promote a worldview of "alternative facts" that many modern conservatives have bought into. It's what leads to Qanon and other dangerous nonsense.
The media, being made of humans, is not perfect and they are not omniscient and omnipresent and can't cover every story perfectly. We can certainly advocate for and promote a stronger, more ethical and consistent free press, but undermining faith in the media is not the way to do it.
Don't buy the lies and "alternative facts."
"What bill just passed in Georgia?"
Are you suggesting that this just passed bill is directly related to this case? If so, provide proof? Does this bill also legalize robbing the dead, and not calling 911 to report a murder?
"Are you sure that's a story you want covered further?"
1. The carry bill has already gotten more national coverage that the murder, corpse robbery, and failure to call 911 Frazier story.
2. Unless you can demonstrate a direct connection between the two stories, this is just an attempt to divert attention from the callousness of those who killed, robbed, and ignored Frazier.
3. If there's a direct connection between the two, sure.
"Are those black voices you want to listen to?"
Sure. If they're more worked up about a bill that is unrelated to what happened to Frazier than the cold blooded, callous, way Frazier was treated, that's their prerogative. I guess if it was me, I'd be more interested in calling out the perpetrators, but to each their own.
"As to why some stories get covered more than others?"
This is a statement with a ? at the end, and makes no sense.
"So, that's why any one murder may not get national coverage. That's just reasonable, correct?"
Excellent job with the forest/trees smokescreen. Unfortunately what makes this crime more newsworthy is the following.
1. The whole thing is on high quality video.
2. It's much more than just a shooting.
"Now, why do SOME black killings get coverage and not others?"
Again, do you not understand that simply adding a ? to a statement, doesn't magically make the statement a question? Do you understand that these statements with a ? aren't questions, and can't be answered because they don't make sense?
"it's part of the unhelpful, even diabolical attack and attempt to undermine confidence in "the media" which helps to promote a worldview of "alternative facts" that many modern conservatives have bought into. It's what leads to Qanon and other dangerous nonsense."
That's quite a claim of fact, of course it's not supported or proven.
I just want to make a point that there is no such thing as "gun violence." I never saw a gun be violent, or even peaceful for that matter.
The people who use guns in crimes are violent. Quit blaming the guns.
Dan continues to willfully distort in order to perpetuate false narratives he finds more personally appealing. The fact remains the problem is not guns, but who is using them to perpetrate crimes. New laws which allow law-abiding targets of criminals to carry guns are unlikely to affect how many criminals are already carrying guns they're not allowed to carry. Lefty liars like Dan, however, are quick to draw imaginary lines between such laws and crimes committed. It's what they do. In the meantime, those who Dan pretends to champion...unless they're as stupid and/or deceitful as Dan...know who is committing crimes and desire the ability to protect themselves from them, and know even more cops they prefer to have in their neighborhoods can't be everywhere at once.
Dan doesn't seem interested in exploring the entire topic as long as his "It's all the gun law" take isn't uncritically affirmed.
I'm pretty sure the folks who robbed Frazier's corpse weren't using guns, nor were the folks who left his dead body right where it lay and didn't call 911. Clearly Frazier's black life didn't matter one bit to any of the folks on that video, and It doesn't appear to matter much to Dan either. Just like the other cases he's ignored.
Post a Comment