Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Boy CNN tried to make the Atlanta shootings all about race


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

Really.  How many people do you know would be that obtuse to use the 'bad day' line?  I would expect a little more awareness in someone that people called Chief.

Given that he's their director of communications, I'd have to agree. I wasn't aware of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I disagree.  If the Sheriff said this without putting into context that he was repeating what the killer said, then how else are you supposed to take it?

But that was the context.

Or do people actually think that a law enforcement officer sympathizes with a guy who just killed eight people in cold blood?  Because that seems to be the only other explanation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to @timschochet position that the media is simply reflecting what the public feels and is interested in, rather than driving the narrative themselves, I think the fact that there are headlines regarding this sheriff at all proves Tim is incorrect (at least in this instance).

Some news outlets very much encouraged people to go down the rabbit hole of this guy's past and background by using his underwhelming press conference as click-bait, which generated further speculative headlines about him. I mean, it's a short leap for so many people to conclude 'see, even the sheriff hates Asians, so of COURSE this is a racially-motivated hate crime!' It drives the hysteria, no question. It's quite possible the guy just sucks at interacting with the media. Further, even if he IS something of a racist (I have no idea), it really has NOTHING to do with this shooting spree.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

If you're going to make an accusation that serious, please add lots more than just dropping that. 

My apologies. I had to run for work just then, it was a big headline. I don’t know how accurate it is which is why I was careful to use the word “may”. But I should have provided a link; normally I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

Getting back to @timschochet position that the media is simply reflecting what the public feels and is interested in, rather than driving the narrative themselves, I think the fact that there are headlines regarding this sheriff at all proves Tim is incorrect (at least in this instance).

Some news outlets very much encouraged people to go down the rabbit hole of this guy's past and background by using his underwhelming press conference as click-bait, which generated further speculative headlines about him. I mean, it's a short leap for so many people to conclude 'see, even the sheriff hates Asians, so of COURSE this is a racially-motivated hate crime!' It drives the hysteria, no question. It's quite possible the guy just sucks at interacting with the media. Further, even if he IS something of a racist (I have no idea), it really has NOTHING to do with this shooting spree.

Again, I don’t see anything wrong with what the media did here. The response to the sheriff was pretty strong, the media reflects that feeling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Again, I don’t see anything wrong with what the media did here. The response to the sheriff was pretty strong, the media reflects that feeling. 

Are you saying you don't think news outlets editorialize even when reporting facts? Not only can they do so by promoting certain stories over others, just the wording of headlines can have massive impacts on how people are first introduced to news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This piece is trash journalism. 

Georgia sheriff's department under fire after official says spa shootings suspect had 'really bad day'

"Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did."

 

That's the headline and byline. Its complete trash. They know exactly what they are doing and they know exactly the narrative that will be spun. You can see who fell for it here and imagine how many others fell for it.

Tim even defends it. (as will the other defend the media at all costs types)

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Battersbox said:

Are you saying you don't think news outlets editorialize even when reporting facts? Not only can they do so by promoting certain stories over others, just the wording of headlines can have massive impacts on how people are first introduced to news.

Of course they editorialize, but for the purpose of getting people to watch. That in itself can be very problematic. Edward R Murrow warned us about it years ago and what he said is even more true today- he couldn’t have predicted 24 hour news stations. 
 

But conservatives have placed a political slant on this- they hold that the news media is trying to push a liberal agenda (and during the last 5 years, that the news media is just plain lying to the public)- that’s the part I have a problem with. I think it’s a lot of BS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This piece is trash journalism. 

Georgia sheriff's department under fire after official says spa shootings suspect had 'really bad day'

"Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did."

 

That's the headline and byline. Its complete trash. They know exactly what they are doing and they know exactly the narrative that will be spun. You can see who fell for it here and imagine how many others fell for it.

Tim even defends it. (as will the other defend the media at all costs types)

Is he under fire for what he said? What’s wrong with the headline? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

Of course they editorialize, but for the purpose of getting people to watch. That in itself can be very problematic. Edward R Murrow warned us about it years ago and what he said is even more true today- he couldn’t have predicted 24 hour news stations. 
 

But conservatives have placed a political slant on this- they hold that the news media is trying to push a liberal agenda (and during the last 5 years, that the news media is just plain lying to the public)- that’s the part I have a problem with. I think it’s a lot of BS. 

We fundamentally disagree. I wish you were right, but I don't think you are. I see agendas leak into 'straight' news all the time, from across the political spectrum.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Capt. Jay Baker: “Yeah let me go into a little detail. The suspect did take responsibility for the shootings. He said that early on once we began the interviews with him. He claims that these – and as the chief said, this is still early – but he does claim that it was not racially motivated. He apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction, and sees these locations as something that allows him to go to these places, and it’s a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate. Like I said, it’s still early on. Those were comments that he made.”

Reporter: “Did he discuss any kind religious motivation for this, or was he…”

Baker: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Reporter: “Or political?”

Baker: “None political. I’ve heard nothing about politics.”

Reporter: “Any sense of his social media history? Is that something you’ve been able to look up?”

Baker: “That’s something that investigators, and they’ve been working on it. That’s certainly one of the things they’ll be doing.”

Reporter: “Sheriff, did you have a sense that he understood the gravity of what he did?”

Baker: “When I spoke with investigators, they interviewed him this morning, and they got that impression that, yes, he understood the gravity of it, and he was pretty much fed up and had been at the end of his rope, and yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.”

Reporter: “Remorseful?”

Baker: “I’m not going to – I don’t know if he was remorseful or not.”

:goodposting:  Context people.  Some people get fooled over and over again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Is he under fire for what he said? What’s wrong with the headline? 

(CNN)A photo allegedly posted by Capt. Jay Baker, a public information officer at the Cherokee County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office, shows shirts with a racist and anti-Asian message about Covid-19.

"Covid 19 imported virus from Chy-na," the racist shirt in the photo posted April 2, 2020, reads.

Although the account that posted it has been deleted, CNN was able to access the photos through a cached copy. The name on the Facebook account matches Jay Baker, and it claims that the individual is an employee of the Cherokee County Sheriff's office.

The Daily Beast was first to report on the racist shirt photo. They also reported the account posted photos of Baker in uniform, with his name tag visible.

Cherokee County Sheriff's Capt. Jay Baker.

When contacted by CNN about the post, Baker told CNN, "No additional comment."

"Love my shirt," the photo caption of the shirt reads. It goes on to encourage others to buy their own shirts saying, "get yours while they last." CNN reached out to the store selling the shirts, but did not immediately receive a response.

Fetishized, sexualized and marginalized, Asian women are uniquely vulnerable to violence

CNN also reached out to Facebook to see whether they deleted the account, or if it was the user that did, but did not receive a response.

This allegation comes as criticism over Baker's description of spa shooting suspect Robert Aaron Long's actions on Tuesday continues to grow.

"He was pretty much fed up and had been kind of at the end of his rope," Baker said in a news conference on Wednesday. "Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I disagree.  If the Sheriff said this without putting into context that he was repeating what the killer said, then how else are you supposed to take it?

1st I have not watched or heard what he said, just what was written here. So I cant comment on tome, inflection or other audio cues that would make an impression one way or another. 

 

But according to the transcript posted here:

Capt. Jay Baker: “Yeah let me go into a little detail. The suspect did take responsibility for the shootings. He said that early on once we began the interviews with him. He claims that these – and as the chief said, this is still early – but he does claim that it was not racially motivated. He apparently has an issue, what he considers a sex addiction, and sees these locations as something that allows him to go to these places, and it’s a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate. Like I said, it’s still early on. Those were comments that he made.”

The capt. has established that he is relaying what the killer himself said to the investigators. 

Reporter: “Did he discuss any kind religious motivation for this, or was he…”

Baker: “Not that I’m aware of.”

Reporter: “Or political?”

Baker: “None political. I’ve heard nothing about politics.”

Reporter: “Any sense of his social media history? Is that something you’ve been able to look up?”

Baker: “That’s something that investigators, and they’ve been working on it. That’s certainly one of the things they’ll be doing.”

He now fields a number of questions where he is clearly stating that he is not in direct contact with the suspect and that investigators are giving him information.

Reporter: “Sheriff, did you have a sense that he understood the gravity of what he did?”

Baker: “When I spoke with investigators, they interviewed him this morning, and they got that impression that,

Indicates that the following are the investigators comments

yes, he understood the gravity of it, and he was pretty much fed up and had been at the end of his rope,

Outlines emotions that were observed and herd by the investigators (he has always says that "the investigators told me...)

and yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did.

He does not give any indication that he switched from investigator comments to he own opinion. And again, remember he says that he was not in any direct contact with the questioning, so why would he offer a personal opinion now?

Reporter: “Remorseful?”

Baker: “I’m not going to – I don’t know if he was remorseful or not.”

Again reinforces that he has no direct knowledge other than what was told to him. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Battersbox said:

We fundamentally disagree. I wish you were right, but I don't think you are. I see agendas leak into 'straight' news all the time, from across the political spectrum.

You are correct. He is not. 

To your point about wording, just look at the Wall Street Journal's coverage regarding climate change/renewables. 

Yesterday in an article the WSJ couldn't just write "renewables" in a sentence. They had to preface the noun with "subsidized renewables." Why? Because it obviously supports their readership's overall anti-liberal bias of climate denial.

Wording, headlines, placement of articles on a page, editorials. It all goes to supporting a news outlet's specific agenda.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Of course they editorialize, but for the purpose of getting people to watch. That in itself can be very problematic. Edward R Murrow warned us about it years ago and what he said is even more true today- he couldn’t have predicted 24 hour news stations. 
 

But conservatives have placed a political slant on this- they hold that the news media is trying to push a liberal agenda (and during the last 5 years, that the news media is just plain lying to the public)- that’s the part I have a problem with. I think it’s a lot of BS. 

The danger is in continuing to get these headlines wrong.  I used to actually use CNN for my news source as it was between MSNBC and Fox News.  There were surely opinion folks there but the news was fairly solid.  Everyone can make mistakes and I don't expect them to be perfect, but when CNN makes a mistake today, it's almost always slanted in one direction. 

Given that, when a CNN person gets on air and talks about how important it is to get vaccinated, personally that doesn't change my view and I agree with them on that.  However, when you talk about conservative people feeling like the media has a liberal agenda, it's these constant errors, misleading headlines, corrections, whatever they are.  Even in the case of Trump's phone call with the GA official, if you feel it was still problematic that's fine, but then why is the original story wrong?  That is what is creating the distrust and sowing a further division and causing skepticism among people even when CNN does report something factual. It leads to people hearing something there and always wanting to believe the opposite.  I think we all need to try and do a better job of trying to filter through fact from opinion, but for a lot of people they are going to go with their side on it pro or con.

Edited by Shula-holic
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the interview.  Definitely ambiguous.  In hindsight a good follow up question would have been for clarification on whether he was quoting the killer are not.  It does kind of stop you in your tracks when he said "it was a bad day for him".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every opinion is 100% pure speculation as none of us know the factual reasons why this happened.  Could be one reason, could be a numbers or reasons totally unrelated to race.   Or it could be reasons race related.   

Nobody really knows what is  true reason.  Unless the shooter tells us his intent we will never know.

Edited by Summer Wheat
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s get back to why this is a big story in the first place. It’s a big story because over the last year the amount of hate crime incidents against Asian Americans have gone through the roof- from less than 100 nationwide in 2019 to over 3800 against Asian women alone in 2020. That’s not a coincidence and the media didn’t create it. CNN didn’t make those hate crimes happen; in fact many Asian American activists have complained that it hadn’t been reported on enough, that until now they’ve largely been invisible. 
 

So of course when some nut goes on a shooting spree and 6 of his 8 victims are Asian women, people are going to make assumptions. Of course it’s going to be a huge story and the media is going to examine the possibility of racist motivation in full, from the beginning. I’m not sure what you guys are expecting; they would be derelict not to report it exactly the way they did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, killface said:

It's still a terrible comment even with the full context

Sir why did you kill your wife.  Well we had a fight and it was a bad day for me

Son, why did you kill those all those people in your class.  Well it was a really bad day for me.  

If you the end result is mass murder i would say everyone of those people is having a really bad day

That being said he has to be smarter than that then to repeat it even if it's verbatim what the guy said.

No.  We want what he said reported exactly. 

Unfortunately, when people who are mentally ill with addiction bad things can result when they are having a "bad day".  And it sounds like that is the truth of the matter.  I only wish we, someone, would have found out he was having a bad day before this happened, as it appears he had been looking for help. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bigbottom said:

I heard a Georgia rep on the news this morning explaining that Georgia’s hate crime laws also cover crimes targeting women. I know there was a guy shot in this incident, but it could very well be that women were targeted and he was collateral damage. 

The narrative that is being shouted out in numerous headlines across the media, is that this is clearly the result of Trump blaming the Chinese for coronavirus and his rhetoric at least partially led to this attack as well as the increase in violence against Asians in general.  It is a severely flawed theory that according to the headlines is gospel.  Even if he did indeed targeted women and it is officially classified as a 'hate crime', it has nothing to do with Trump.  This guy had an addiction that he could not escape from and he lost it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jobarules said:

(CNN)A photo allegedly posted by Capt. Jay Baker, a public information officer at the Cherokee County, Georgia, Sheriff's Office, shows shirts with a racist and anti-Asian message about Covid-19.

"Covid 19 imported virus from Chy-na," the racist shirt in the photo posted April 2, 2020, reads.

Although the account that posted it has been deleted, CNN was able to access the photos through a cached copy. The name on the Facebook account matches Jay Baker, and it claims that the individual is an employee of the Cherokee County Sheriff's office.

The Daily Beast was first to report on the racist shirt photo. They also reported the account posted photos of Baker in uniform, with his name tag visible.

Cherokee County Sheriff's Capt. Jay Baker.

When contacted by CNN about the post, Baker told CNN, "No additional comment."

"Love my shirt," the photo caption of the shirt reads. It goes on to encourage others to buy their own shirts saying, "get yours while they last." CNN reached out to the store selling the shirts, but did not immediately receive a response.

Fetishized, sexualized and marginalized, Asian women are uniquely vulnerable to violence

CNN also reached out to Facebook to see whether they deleted the account, or if it was the user that did, but did not receive a response.

This allegation comes as criticism over Baker's description of spa shooting suspect Robert Aaron Long's actions on Tuesday continues to grow.

"He was pretty much fed up and had been kind of at the end of his rope," Baker said in a news conference on Wednesday. "Yesterday was a really bad day for him, and this is what he did."

CNN needs to be CANCELED.  This faux pas only reinforces the OP.

CNN ---> :toilet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You made your point in the first post, it’s an awful analogy. My context justifies me; his does not. 

I'll restate though: the fact that we're talking about the sheriff AT ALL proves the media is guiding us down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the shooting spree.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You made your point in the first post, it’s an awful analogy. My context justifies me; his does not. 

They are exactly the same. You were relaying terms other people used. So was the sheriff. The media is reporting them as if they are original thoughts just as the way I quoted you shows (incorrectly of course)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Summer Wheat said:

Every opinion is 100% pure speculation as none of us know the factual reasons why this happened.  Could be one reason, could be a numbers or reasons totally unrelated to race.   Or it could be reasons race related.   

Nobody really knows what is  true reason.  Unless the shooter tells us his intent we will never know.

:confused:   He gave his answer to that question and it's been quoted everywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I watched the interview.  Definitely ambiguous.  In hindsight a good follow up question would have been for clarification on whether he was quoting the killer are not.  It does kind of stop you in your tracks when he said "it was a bad day for him".

How can you say it was ambiguous? I mean it is literally in the same sentence that starts with this...

When I spoke with investigators, they interviewed him this morning, and they got that impression that,

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

They are exactly the same. You were relaying terms other people used. So was the sheriff. The media is reporting them as if they are original thoughts just as the way I quoted you shows (incorrectly of course)

No. I’ll leave it up to everyone reading this to make up their own mind, but IMO the differences between the two examples are cavernous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NYPD created an Asian Hate Crime Task Force last summer, which is composed of 25 detectives of Asian descent in hopes of encouraging victims to report crimes to the police while building a better rapport with the community.  So we have 25 full time people and 'hate crimes' arrests rise from 3 to 28.  LA has a similar situation.  A better theory is, we are seeing an increase in reporting because we are now actively searching for these crimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:

How can you say it was ambiguous? I mean it is literally in the same sentence that starts with this...

When I spoke with investigators, they interviewed him this morning, and they got that impression that,

 

When it's read it definitely comes off that way.  When you watch it, I doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tonydead said:

:confused:   He gave his answer to that question and it's been quoted everywhere.

Do you generally find mass murderers to be inherently trustworthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Let’s get back to why this is a big story in the first place. It’s a big story because over the last year the amount of hate crime incidents against Asian Americans have gone through the roof- from less than 100 nationwide in 2019 to over 3800 against Asian women alone in 2020. That’s not a coincidence and the media didn’t create it. CNN didn’t make those hate crimes happen; in fact many Asian American activists have complained that it hadn’t been reported on enough, that until now they’ve largely been invisible. 
 

So of course when some nut goes on a shooting spree and 6 of his 8 victims are Asian women, people are going to make assumptions. Of course it’s going to be a huge story and the media is going to examine the possibility of racist motivation in full, from the beginning. I’m not sure what you guys are expecting; they would be derelict not to report it exactly the way they did. 

I cant disagree with anything you say here. Unfortunately, a global pandemic started in China and changed our way of life and some sick people wanted to take their frustrations out on Asian Americans who had nothing whatsoever to do with covid. Its sad and I certainly do feel for them and I am glad it is getting the coverage (even if so accidentally) needed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The narrative that is being shouted out in numerous headlines across the media, is that this is clearly the result of Trump blaming the Chinese for coronavirus and his rhetoric at least partially led to this attack as well as the increase in violence against Asians in general.  It is a severely flawed theory that according to the headlines is gospel.  Even if he did indeed targeted women and it is officially classified as a 'hate crime', it has nothing to do with Trump.  This guy had an addiction that he could not escape from and he lost it.  

Right. I was simply stating that this very well could still be categorized as a hate crime under Georgia law, even if the victims’ race ends up not playing a role. I know the point you were making, and was simply offering additional information to be informative, not necessarily to contradict you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

Do you generally find mass murderers to be inherently trustworthy?

 

5 hours ago, tonydead said:

I think it's very clear.  As reported just about everywhere:

And please consider Occam's Razor before responding with the, why should be believe what a psychopath says defense.  (not specifically you, anybody in general)

I don't see what his motive for lying could be at this point.  But, maybe you can dream something up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jobarules said:

why anyone—esp celebrities and people of position— uses twitter anymore is amazing to me. Keep your 140 character thoughts to your damn self. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, glvsav37 said:

why anyone—esp celebrities and people of position— uses twitter anymore is amazing to me. Keep your 140 character thoughts to your damn self. 

This is what i think.

How hard is it not to be a jerk nowadays.  It shouldn't be that hard.  And it shouldn't be surprising when it bites you in the a$$

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I used the laughing emoji but thats only bc there wasnt a better option. Some people are just stupid....thanks to SM we let them come out of their holes vs talking dumb #### to themselves in their dorm room, garage, backyard bbq, bar, etc.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...