Hacker News Reader

Comment by drewrv | Hacker News Reader

“Polls in summer 2020 estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

Given the sheer scale of people protesting they were, by all reasonable definitions, mostly peaceful. When news reports prefer to show things like broken windows and trash cans on fire, but it’s impossible to show 15 to 26 million people spread across 50 states, emphasizing that the protests were mostly peaceful and the violent images are the outlier is responsible journalism.

View on HN

The journalist is literally standing in front of a burning building: https://youtu.be/igzNAzcXNBA

It’s totally fair to lose faith after seeing that.

> It’s totally fair to lose faith after seeing that.

Nah, not IMO. The video you linked to has the reporter claiming that the current state is "in stark contrast" to the day's earlier protests.

BTW, the term that I stated originally ("Mainstream media") may include CNN but it also includes AP, Reuters, and many more press agencies that are much more dignified. CNN used to be 'headline news' but has transformed into the same nonstop opinion shows in order to compete with Fox. So it's not the best source IMO.

But don't lose faith. Don't base things on the worst example. Instead judge Mainstream Media by the NYT, Washington Post, Reuters, NPR.

I’ve lost faith, it’s too late for that. Reuters and AP seem to play it straight. NPR I’d say is somewhat biased, not really at the facts level but in the way stories are framed. NYT is a hopeless lost cause. WaPo, I have no opinion on, I don’t really read them much.

Over 80 people killed during the summer of love but January 6th was an "insurrection"?

You mock yourself if you are sincerely defending this crap.

It’s the MSM showing you a video of a burning building. Why does that cause you to lose faith in the MSM when they give you video evidence of what’s happening?

We had video evidence of those Convington kids and then found out the part shown was a section that didn't tell the story. Video has been shown and edited a bit too much lately. It's not the shown video but what isn't being shown that is often the problem.

"Mostly peaceful" said the reporter, in front of a burning building.

Context matters.

They were showing the anomalous situation, and giving an overview for greater context.

Reporting only the former, or only the latter dissociates the two. This was clearly establishing and acknowledging context for the extreme outlier of the situation being pictured.

But you’ve already made up your mind, I suppose, and no amount of logic or reason will bring you back.

If you want me to believe protests are "mostly peaceful" then don't report in front of a fucking conflagration.

Furthermore - and there's no nice way to say this - why are people so dumb as to believe news outlets as if they're arbiters of the truth? As if they were the very Ancients themselves from the Stargate universe, descended down to enlighten us all with zero self-interest?

The New York Times COMPANY. A COMPANY. Owned by a trust-fund jackass who inherited it from his great-great-great-however-many-times-grandfather.

CNN, owned by Turner Broadcasting Company, owned by WarnerMedia, owned by AT&T... the same AT&T that's lied about bringing fiber to America after getting how many billions in tax dollars for the past 36-something years from Congress?

How deluded do you have to be to think any of these outlets are being even remotely objective about "The News"?

They pander to your goofy asses, and you consistently believe them. CNN is no better than Fox News is no better than MSNBC is no better than <insert here>.

EDIT: You're not goofy, guys... you're just honestly fucking gullible and dumb if you believe any of them. You're being sold a story - a worldview compatible with whatever bullshit you want to believe. It makes me sick that people can't or won't be honest about this.

Yes, optics matter and this was one of the worst among them.

But you didn't have to go all the way back in history though. In my opinion, CNN's trope of succession is largely forgotten today in this specific journalism-is-dead context but unless "hackers" have been living under a rock for the past few years, pointing this out is far more important than continuing to cherrypick out the headlines. Remember when HN was all about punk/hackers culture from two decades ago? Times have certainly changed.

I have seen more humanity in people than I would normally expose myself to but more about those caught in the crossfire. Two examples I can think of was the story of a Seattle security guard snatching away a rifle from a group of rioters whom freshly pillaged a police car and, an urban explorer vlogging his departure from Seattle as a result from the protests.

Security guard -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXoGzJZw4Z4

Vagrant Holiday -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUO8secmc0g

Somewhat related -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZPgz5T7PXI

And you don't see a problem with the passive voice either ("Fires have been started")?

It’s the spin, the contrast between what’s on the screen and the commentary about it. It causes me to lose faith in CNN as an unbiased source. Doesn’t apply to all MSM, but it’s a data point.

That is fair and logical take. But if the protesters had been wearing red caps, people would be defending a fair and logical take in the press that they were cover for violent riots and looting.

I'd be more interested in data a few years from now to show if protesting really did anything? Obviously this is a right we must protect and embolden, however for certain causes protesting in this day and age seems to do little to elicit actual political action or change - sometimes it even does the opposite.

Protests in the late 90s brought visibility to issues, AND had a clear ask to the public.

Today people protest to just being visibility. But they have no ask or strategy on how to resolve the underlying issue.

The lack of a clear ask on policy change is likely why many recent protests haven’t accomplished meaningful policy change.

I couldn't agree more - I think the number of pervasive narratives accelerated by social media (with almost zero backing in data) are also a factor here. For instance, I support reducing emissions and fossil fuel use, but I find it a bit nuts when Gen Z claims "the world will end in 12 years" without offering any real path forward other than "fuck anyone who disagrees".

Sure a head count of all protests from the whole country buries the problem from view. Using this logic Jan 6th was peaceful.

The problem is they mentioned protests, not protestors. The more relevant way to look at it is how many protest events led to rioting as it progressed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com